Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 16691 

1 16 U.S.C. 824o. 

Kamuela, HI, Waimea-Kohala, VOR/DME 

RWY 4, Amdt 1 

Boone, IA, Boone Muni, Copter NDB OR GPS 

225, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED 

Boone, IA, Boone Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 

19B, CANCELLED 

Boone, IA, Boone Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 

6B, CANCELLED 

Carroll, IA, Arthur N Neu, NDB RWY 31, 

Amdt 7, CANCELLED 

Council Bluffs, IA, Council Bluffs Muni, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 

1 

Decorah, IA Decorah Muni, NDB RWY 29, 

Amdt 1A, CANCELLED 

Decorah, IA Decorah Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 

Guthrie Center, IA, Guthrie County Rgnl, 

NDB RWY 18, Orig-A, CANCELLED 

Perry, IA, Perry Muni, NDB RWY 14, Amdt 

2B, CANCELLED 

Perry, IA, Perry Muni, NDB RWY 32, Amdt 

5B, CANCELLED 

Sibley, IA, Sibley Muni, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Chicago, IL, Chicago-O’Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 22R, Amdt 8A 

Kingman, KS, Kingman Airport-Clyde Cessna 

Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, 

Orig 

Homer, LA, Homer Muni, NDB RWY 12, 

Amdt 2, CANCELLED 

Homer, LA, Homer Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

12, Amdt 1, CANCELLED 

Homer, LA, Homer Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

30, Amdt 1, CANCELLED 

Homer, LA, Homer Muni, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Orig, CANCELLED 

Lake Charles, LA, Lake Charles Rgnl, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Lake Providence, LA, Byerley, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 17, Orig, CANCELLED 

Lake Providence, LA, Byerley, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig, 

CANCELLED 

Nantucket, MA, Nantucket Memorial, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A 

Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, 

GPS RWY 5, Orig-A, CANCELLED 

Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, 

GPS RWY 23, Orig-A, CANCELLED 

Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig 

Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig 

Marlette, MI, Marlette, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 15, Orig 

Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 33, Orig 

Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 

Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR–A, Orig 

Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR 

GPS RWY 3, Amdt 7A, CANCELLED 

Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR 

GPS RWY 21, Amdt 3A, CANCELLED 

Ada/Twin Valley, MN, Norman County Ada/ 

Twin Valley, GPS RWY 33, Orig-A, 

CANCELLED 

Ada/Twin Valley, MN, Norman County Ada/ 

Twin Valley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig 

Fergus Falls, MN, Fergus Falls Muni-Einar 

Mickelson Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig 

Grand Marais, MN, Grand Marais/Cook 

County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig 

Grand Marais, MN, Grand Marais/Cook 

County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1 

Little Falls, MN, Littles Falls/Morrison 

County-Lindberg Fld, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 

Wadena, MN, Wadena Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Ahoskie, NC, Tri-County, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Orig 

New Bern, NC, Coastal Carolina Rgnl, 

RADAR–1, Amdt 2B, CANCELLED 

Fargo, ND, Hector Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, 

Amdt 1 

Kenmare, ND, Kenmare Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 12, Orig-B 

Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 17, Orig-B 

Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 35, Orig-B 

Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, GLS RWY 

22L, Orig-B 

Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 11, Amdt 2A 

Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 22L, ILS RWY 22L (SA CAT I), ILS 

RWY 22L (SA CAT II), Amdt 12A 

Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, GPS 

RWY 2, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED 

Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, GPS 

RWY 25, Amdt 1, CANCELLED 

Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, NDB 

RWY 2, Amdt 5, CANCELLED 

Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 2, Orig 

Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 25, Orig 

Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, CAPITAN 

ONE Graphic DP 

Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, GPS RWY 

24, Orig-A, CANCELLED 

Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 24, Orig 

Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown 

Executive, GPS RWY 17, Orig-A, 

CANCELLED 

Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown 

Executive, GPS RWY 35, Orig-A, 

CANCELLED 

Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown 

Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig 

Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown 

Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig 

Kingsville, TX, Kleberg County, NDB RWY 

13, Amdt 6 

Muleshoe, TX, Muleshoe Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Uvalde, TX, Garner Field, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, GPS RWY 17L, OrigB, CANCELLED 

Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, GPS RWY 35R, OrigA, CANCELLED 

Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, NDB RWY 35R, 

Amdt 11 

Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

17L, Orig 

Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

35R, Orig 

Fort Atkinson, WI, Atkinson Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

[FR Doc. 2011–6117 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

Docket No. RM09–19–000; Order No. 746] 

Western Electric Coordinating Council 

Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled 

Flow Relief Regional Reliability 

Standard 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act, the Commission 

approves regional Reliability Standard 

of the Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council (WECC) IRO–006–WECC–1 

(Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled 

Flow Relief) and six associated new 

definitions submitted to the 

Commission for approval by the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation. This Reliability Standard is 

intended to mitigate transmission 

overloads due to unscheduled flow on 

a transfer path designated by WECC as 

being qualified for unscheduled flow 

mitigation. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will 

become effective May 24, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terence Burke (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6498. 

Danny Johnson (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–8892. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, 

Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. 

Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. 

LaFleur. 

Final Rule 

1. Under section 215 of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission 

approves regional Reliability Standard 

of the Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council (WECC) IRO–006–WECC–1 

(Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled 

Flow Relief) and six associated new 

definitions submitted to the 

Commission for approval by the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC), the Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO) certified 

by the Commission. The approved 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
16692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2The term ‘‘Qualified Transfer Path’’ is defined as 

‘‘[a] transfer path designated by the WECC 

Operating Committee as being qualified for WECC 

unscheduled flow mitigation.’’ When the Standard 

becomes effective, this definition will be added to 

the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability 

Standards. 

3 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 

FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). 

4 Modification of Interchange and Transmission 

Loading Relief Reliability Standards; and Electric 

Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific 

Requirements of Four Reliability Standards, Order 

No. 713–A, 126 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2009), reh’g denied, 

Order No. 713–B, 130 FERC ¶ 61,032 (2010). 

5North American Electric Reliability Corp., 

Docket No. RD09–9–000 (Dec. 10, 2009) 

(unpublished letter order). Note that Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–4.1, Requirement R1.2 refers to 

the ‘‘WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction 

Procedure,’’ which is Attachment 1 to the Mitigation 

Plan, the term we use herein. 

6See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 

119 FERC ¶ 61,060, order on reh’g, 120 FERC 

¶ 61,260 (2007). 

7 Id. P 469–470. 

8North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007) (June 8, 2007 Order). 

9Regional Reliability Standard IRO–STD–006–0, 

available at http://www.wecc.biz/Standards/

Approved%20Standards/IRO–STD–006–0.pdf. 

10 June 8, 2007 Order, 119 FERC ¶ 61,260 at 

P 70–71. 

11Western Electric Coordinating Council 

Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief 

Regional Reliability Standard, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 75 FR 66702 (Oct. 29, 2010), FERC 

Stats & Regs. ¶ 32,663 (2010) (NOPR). 

Reliability Standard is intended to 

mitigate transmission overloads due to 

unscheduled flow on Qualified Transfer 

Paths.2

I. Background 

A. NERC Reliability Standard IRO–006 

2. On March 16, 2007, the 

Commission issued Order No. 693 

approving 83 Reliability Standards 

proposed by NERC, including 

Interconnection Reliability Operations 

and Coordination (IRO) Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–3, titled ‘‘Reliability 

Coordination—Transmission Loading 

Relief.’’ 3 In addition, under section 

215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission 

directed the ERO to develop 

modifications to IRO–006–3 and other 

approved Reliability Standards to 

address specific issues identified by the 

Commission. 

3. NERC Reliability Standard IRO– 

006–3 establishes a Transmission 

Loading Relief (TLR) process for use in 

the Eastern Interconnection to alleviate 

loadings on the system by curtailing or 

changing transactions based on their 

priorities and according to different 

levels of TLR procedures. Requirement 

R2.2 provides that ‘‘the equivalent 

Interconnection-wide transmission 

loading relief procedure for use in the 

Western Interconnection is the WECC 

Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan.’’ 

This document provides detailed 

instructions for addressing unscheduled 

flows, i.e., parallel path flows, based on 

the topography and configuration of the 

Bulk-Power System in the Western 

Interconnection. The Unscheduled Flow 

Mitigation Plan identifies nine ‘‘steps’’ to 

address unscheduled flows. In the first 

three steps, the Mitigation Plan relies on 

phase angle regulators, series capacitors, 

and back-to-back DC lines to mitigate 

contingencies without curtailing 

transactions. Steps four through nine 

involve curtailment of transactions. 

4. On March 19, 2009, the 

Commission approved IRO–006–4, 

which modified the prior version of the 

Reliability Standard and addressed the 

Commission’s directives from Order No. 

693.4 The Commission subsequently 

accepted an erratum to that Reliability 

Standard that corrected the reference in 

Requirement R1.2 to the Unscheduled 

Flow Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan).5

B. WECC Delegation Agreement and 

WECC Regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–STD–006–0 

5. On April 19, 2007, the Commission 

approved delegation agreements 

between NERC and each of the eight 

Regional Entities, including WECC.6 In 

that approval, the Commission accepted 

WECC as a Regional Entity organized on 

an Interconnection-wide basis and 

accepted WECC’s Standards 

Development Manual, which sets forth 

the process for development of WECC’s 

Reliability Standards.7

6. On June 8, 2007, the Commission 

approved eight WECC regional 

Reliability Standards that apply in the 

Western Interconnection, including 

IRO–STD–006–0.8 The regional 

Reliability Standard applies to 

transmission operators, load-serving 

entities and balancing authorities within 

the Western Interconnection. It 

addresses the mitigation of transmission 

overloads due to unscheduled line flow 

on specified paths. Specifically, 

Requirement R1 of IRO–STD–006–0 

states that: 

WECC’s Unscheduled Flow Mitigation 

Plan (Plan) * * * specifies that members 

shall comply with requests from (Qualified) 

Transfer Path Operators to take actions that 

will reduce unscheduled flow on the 

Qualified Path in accordance with the table 

entitled ‘‘WECC Unscheduled Flow 

Procedure Summary of Curtailment Actions,’’ 

which is located in Attachment 1 of the 

Plan.9

The regional Reliability Standard then 

provides excerpts from the plan that 

describe actions entities must take to 

address unscheduled flow. 

7. The June 8, 2007 Order directed 

WECC to develop certain modifications 

to the eight WECC Reliability Standards 

to address issues identified by the 

Commission. With respect to IRO–STD– 

006–0, the Commission directed WECC 

to clarify the term ‘‘receiver’’ used in the 

Reliability Standard. The Commission 

also directed WECC to address concerns 

raised by a commenter regarding 

WECC’s inclusion of load-serving 

entities, which may be unable to meet 

the Reliability Standard’s requirements, 

in the applicability section of the 

Reliability Standard.10 The Commission 

directed WECC to remove a Sanctions 

Table that is inconsistent with the NERC 

Sanctions Guidelines. The Commission 

also directed WECC to address NERC’s 

concerns regarding formatting, use of 

standard terms, and the need for greater 

specificity in the actions that a 

responsible entity must take. 

C. Proposed Regional Reliability 

Standard 

8. In a June 17, 2009 filing (NERC 

Petition), NERC requested Commission 

approval of proposed regional 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1, 

which was developed in response to the 

Commission’s directives in the June 8, 

2007 Order, to replace the currently 

effective regional Standard. NERC stated 

that the purpose of IRO–006–WECC–1 is 

to mitigate transmission overloads due 

to unscheduled flow on Qualified 

Transfer Paths. Under the Reliability 

Standard, reliability coordinators are 

responsible for initiating schedule 

curtailments, and balancing authorities 

are responsible for implementing the 

curtailments. Specifically, proposed 

regional Reliability Standard IRO–006– 

WECC–1 contains the following two 

Requirements: 

R.1. Upon receiving a request of Step 4 or 

greater (see Attachment 1–IRO–006–WECC– 

1) from the Transmission Operator of a 

Qualified Transfer Path, the Reliability 

Coordinator shall approve (actively or 

passively) or deny that request within five 

minutes. 

R.2. The Balancing Authorities shall 

approve curtailment requests to the 

schedules as submitted, implement 

alternative actions, or a combination there of 

that collectively meets the Relief 

Requirement. 

An attachment to IRO–006–WECC–1 

summarizes the nine steps and related 

actions to address unscheduled flows. 

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

9. On October 29, 2010, the 

Commission issued its Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking proposing to 

approve the regional IRO Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–WECC–1.11 In 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 16693 

12The webSAS (Security Analysis System) is a 

proprietary internet based application that is used 

by WECC to analyze, initiate, communicate, and 

provide compliance reports for implementation of 

the Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure. It is 

available by subscription through the vendor to 

provide notification of Unscheduled Flow Events, 

calculate and display required relief, and provide 

a rapid method of transaction curtailments. 

13Subsequent to filing its comments in this 

Docket, NERC filed its Petition for Approval of 

Proposed New Interconnection Reliability 

Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, 

Glossary Term and Implementation Plan on January 

13, 2011 in Docket No. RD11–2–000. 

14 June 18, 2007 Order, 119 FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 

69. 

15NERC’s petition for approval of regional 

Reliability Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 is currently 

pending before the Commission in Docket No. 

RM09–14–000. 

addition, the Commission raised 

concerns with respect to: (1) How 

entities will know whether to follow the 

national or regional Standard in a given 

situation; (2) WECC’s and NERC’s 

reliance on TOP–007–WECC–1 to 

ensure that entities manage power flows 

using steps one through three of the 

Mitigation Plan prior to requesting 

curtailments; (3) how the webSAS 12

tool will work with respect to the 

national and regional Standard; and (4) 

the potential reliability impact of 

reliability coordinators’ inability to 

request curtailments. 

10. In response to the NOPR, 

comments were filed by NERC, WECC, 

and Nevada Power Company and Sierra 

Pacific Power Company, both d/b/a NV 

Energy (NV Energy). In the discussion 

below, we address these comments. 

II. Discussion 

A. Approval of IRO–006–WECC–1 

11. In the NOPR, the Commission 

proposed to approve regional Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 stating that 

it adequately addresses a number of the 

directives identified in the June 8, 2007 

Order and represents an improvement to 

the current Standard. As stated in the 

NOPR, the Standard addresses our 

concern regarding the use of the term 

‘‘receiver’’ by removing the term, thus 

removing potential confusion arising 

from the use of the undefined term. The 

Reliability Standard also provides 

additional clarity by removing loadserving entities from its applicability 

section since load-serving entities may 

not be able to meet the Standard’s 

requirements regarding curtailment 

procedures. Further, the Standard 

includes reliability coordinators as an 

applicable entity and addresses their 

role in curtailment procedures. The 

Standard goes beyond the 

corresponding NERC Reliability 

Standard by requiring a reliability 

coordinator to approve or deny a 

transmission operator’s curtailment 

request within five minutes. Finally, the 

WECC Reliability Standard addresses 

formatting concerns, conformance with 

NERC’s Violation Severity Level and 

Violation Risk Factor matrix, and the 

elimination of a WECC sanction table. 

NERC, WECC, and NV Energy all 

support approval. Accordingly the 

Commission adopts the NOPR proposal 

and approves regional Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 as just, 

reasonable, not unduly discriminatory 

or preferential, and in the public 

interest. 

12. We raised in the NOPR several 

concerns regarding how the regional 

Reliability Standard would work in 

practice to ensure Reliable Operation in 

the Western Interconnect. As a result of 

the comments submitted, our concerns 

have been adequately addressed, and we 

do not direct any modifications to the 

regional Reliability Standard. 

B. Issues Raised in NOPR 

1. Consistency Between NERC and 

WECC 

13. Requirement R1.2 in NERC 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 refers to 

the WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction 

Procedure with regard to transmission 

loading relief in the Western 

Interconnection. In the NOPR, the 

Commission requested comment on the 

interaction between the differing 

requirements contained in the regional 

versus the national Reliability 

Standards, on which of the two 

Standards’ requirements take 

precedence, and on how NERC intends 

to ensure compliance and consistent 

enforcement with regard to the 

Standards. 

Comments 

14. WECC and NV Energy comment 

that the Standards differ in their 

applicability. They state that NERC’s 

IRO–006–4 addresses the obligations of 

the reliability coordinator and the 

balancing authority if an 

Interconnection-wide procedure is 

selected for the mitigation of overloads 

on transmission facilities. According to 

WECC and NV Energy, Regional 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 

sets out reliability obligations for the 

reliability coordinator and balancing 

authority regarding transmission 

loading relief on the narrow subset of 

Western Interconnect transmission 

facilities designated as Qualified 

Transfer Paths. The two commenters 

assert there is no conflict between the 

NERC Reliability Standard and the 

regional Standard, as they work 

together. 

15. NERC states that it recognized 

some potential for confusion in this 

matter and will soon file for approval a 

proposed Reliability Standard IRO–006– 

5 13 that, among other things, eliminates 

reference to the WECC Unscheduled 

Flow Reduction Procedure as a 

procedure that may be selected by the 

reliability coordinator to achieve 

loading relief and, instead, mentions the 

procedure as an example for which 

coordination must occur. 

Commission Determination 

16. The Commission finds that 

NERC’s plan to eliminate the 

opportunity for confusion with respect 

to this Reliability Standard adequately 

addresses the concerns raised in the 

NOPR. 

2. TOP–007–WECC–1 and the 

Mitigation Plan 

17. In the June 8, 2007 Order, the 

Commission determined that the 

regional Reliability Standard IRO–STD– 

006–0 is superior to the NERC Standard 

based in part on the specified precurtailment steps one through three of 

the Mitigation Plan.14 As stated above, 

the Mitigation Plan is no longer 

referenced in IRO–006–WECC–1. The 

NERC Petition stated that proposed 

WECC regional Reliability Standard 

TOP–007–WECC–1, would work in 

conjunction with IRO–006–WECC–1 to 

ensure that pre-curtailment steps one 

through three of the Mitigation Plan are 

performed.15 In the NOPR, the 

Commission requested comment as to 

whether WECC’s reliance on proposed 

regional Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 or 

currently effective Reliability Standard 

TOP–STD–007–0 (whichever is in 

effect) is an adequate replacement for 

the currently required pre-curtailment 

actions set forth in steps one through 

three of the Mitigation Plan. 

Comments 

18. Each of the commenters note that 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 

and the proposed regional Standard 

TOP–007–WECC–1 were intended to 

meet the performance objective of 

enhanced reliability but not to prescribe 

a specific method for achieving that 

objective. WECC and NV Energy assert 

that the pre-curtailment steps were not 

mandatory, but, as before, they remain 

tools available to transmission operators 

for the mitigation of transmission 

facility overloading. WECC states that 

reliability would suffer if transmission 

operators were limited in their action by 

a mandatory adherence to the Mitigation 

Plan. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
16694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

16NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,663 at P 30. 

17 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

18 5 CFR 1320.11. 

Commission Determination 

19. The Commission acknowledges 

the comments offered and is satisfied 

that IRO–006–WECC–1 does not present 

a reduction in reliability. The 

Commission also highlights the 

comment made by WECC that the 

Standard is applicable to reliability 

coordinators and balancing authorities, 

not to transmission operators. Under the 

Standard, the reliability coordinator 

must approve or deny the 

implementation of a step four or higher 

action, and the balancing authority must 

grant relief so the transmission operator 

does not violate a system operating limit 

(SOL) or an interconnection reliability 

operating limit (IROL) operating limit. 

But transmission operator’s obligations 

remain unchanged by IRO–006–WECC– 

1. They continue to be required to take 

immediate steps to relieve an SOL or 

IROL operating limit violation. 

3. Operation of webSAS 

20. According to the NERC Petition, 

the webSAS tool calculates curtailment 

and, unless the reliability coordinator 

actively denies the request, approves the 

curtailment within five minutes. The 

Commission requested in the NOPR 

additional information regarding how 

the webSAS program works in relation 

to WECC’s proposed IRO–006–WECC–1 

as well as the currently effective IRO– 

006–4, and whether conflicts could arise 

between the webSAS programming and 

the Mitigation Plan. 

Comments 

21. NV Energy and WECC comments 

describe of the webSAS program, 

explaining that it utilizes impedance 

modeling of the transmission network in 

the Western Interconnection and is able 

to determine transmission distribution 

factors that correspond to discrete 

transactions. It is configured to 

prescribe curtailments in accordance 

with the curtailment table in the WECC 

Unscheduled Flow Reduction 

Procedure, and is only one of the 

methods a balancing authority might 

use in devising curtailments. WECC 

notes that webSAS merely suggests 

strategies; the responsible balancing 

authority must implement those 

strategies. WECC further comments that 

WebSAS operates similarly whether 

utilized under the regional or the 

national Reliability Standard. 

Commission Determination 

22. The Commission is satisfied with 

the commenters’ explanation of the 

operation of webSAS, as well as its 

proposed use within the mitigation 

process set out in Reliability Standard 

IRO–006–WECC–1. 

4. Reliability Coordinators’ Role in 

Curtailment 

23. In the NOPR the Commission 

stated that, because reliability 

coordinators are the only entities with 

the wide-area view, the Commission 

believes it is appropriate that they, as 

the entities with the highest level of 

authority to ensure reliability, have the 

ability to initiate relief procedures.16 In 

the NOPR, the Commission requested 

comment regarding its concerns that the 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

does not mention the reliability 

coordinators’ ability to request 

curtailments, and that automatic 

approval of curtailments may occur 

through the webSAS tool without 

reliability coordinator review. 

Comments 

24. WECC and NV Energy comment 

that the reliability coordinator always 

has the ability to issue directives or take 

other actions to ensure Reliable 

Operations under the authority granted 

in Reliability Standard IRO–001–1.1. 

NV Energy states that the automatic 

approval of requested curtailments after 

five minutes is an appropriate balance 

between allowing for the reliability 

coordinators’ participation and 

adequately ensuring that transmission 

loading relief is obtained for the next 

hour. 

Commission Determination 

25. The Commission agrees with the 

commenters that NERC Reliability 

Standard IRO–001–1.1 provides the 

reliability coordinator authority to take 

actions to ensure Reliable Operations, 

and no further clarification is required. 

5. Alternative Revisions 

26. Because of the concerns expressed 

in the NOPR, the Commission 

questioned whether it might be more 

efficient and appropriate if all the 

WECC rules and procedures with 

respect to unscheduled flow mitigation 

were incorporated in a single document. 

Comments 

27. WECC asserts that regional 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 does 

not mandate following the Mitigation 

Plan but only suggests that the 

Mitigation Plan is a procedure available 

to a reliability coordinator. Therefore, 

incorporating the WECC rules and 

procedures into the Mitigation Plan 

would not eliminate the need for an 

enforceable regional Reliability 

Standard. WECC also comments that the 

differing purposes of the Mitigation 

Plan, IRO–006–WECC–1, and TOP–007– 

WECC–1 would thwart efforts to 

combine them. NERC notes that it has 

already undertaken eliminating the 

regional differences from the continentwide standard in its proposed IRO–006– 

5. 

Commission Determination 

28. The clarification provided by 

WECC adequately addresses the 

Commission’s concerns. Accordingly, 

the Commission finds that IRO–006– 

WECC–1 represents an improvement to 

reliability. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

29. The following collections of 

information contained in this Reliability 

Standard have been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1955.17 OMB’s regulations require OMB 

to approve certain information 

collection requirements imposed by 

agency rule.18

30. The Commission solicited 

comments on the burden to implement 

IRO–006–WECC–1 which, rather than 

creating entirely new requirements, 

instead modifies the existing regional 

Reliability Standard governing qualified 

transfer path unscheduled flow relief 

and thus imposes a minimal additional 

burden on the affected entities. The 

Commission received no comments as 

to the issue of reporting burden 

estimates. The Commission has not 

directed any modifications to the 

Requirements of the Reliability 

Standard being approved. Thus this 

Final Ruled does not materially or 

adversely affect the burden estimates 

provided in the NOPR. 

31. Burden Estimate: The burden for 

the requirements in this final rule 

follow: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 16695 

19Regulations Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 

47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., 

Regulations Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

20 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). 

21 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

22 13 CFR 121.101. 23 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n. 1. 

Data collection FERC–725E Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total annual 

hours 

35 Balancing Authorities and 1 Reliability Coordinator—Reporting Requirement ............................................................................................................. 36 1 1 36 

35 Balancing Authorities and 1 Reliability Coordinator—Recordkeeping Requirement ..................................................................................................... 36 1 1 36 

Total ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 72 

Total Annual hours for Collection: 36 

reporting +36 recordkeeping = 72 hours. 

Reporting = 36 hours @ $120/hour = 

$4320. 

Recordkeeping = 36 hours @ $40/hour 

= $1440. 

Total Costs = Reporting ($4320) + 

Recordkeeping ($1440) = $5760. 

Title: FERC 725E, Mandatory 

Reliability Standards for the Western 

Electric Coordinating Council. 

Action: Proposed collection of 

information. 

OMB Control No: 1902–0246. 

Respondents: Balancing Authorities 

and Reliability Coordinator in the 

Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council. 

Frequency of Responses: On 

Occasion. 

Necessity of the Information: This 

Final Rule would approve a revised 

Reliability Standard modifying the 

existing requirement for entities to 

respond to requests for curtailment. The 

proposed Reliability Standard requires 

entities to maintain documentation 

evidencing their response to such 

requests. 

Internal review: The Commission has 

reviewed the requirements pertaining to 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–006–WECC–1 and believes it to be 

just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in 

the public interest. These requirements 

conform to the Commission’s plan for 

efficient information collection, 

communication and management within 

the energy industry. The Commission 

has assured itself, by means of internal 

review, that there is specific, objective 

support for the burden estimates 

associated with the information 

requirements. 

32. 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, Phone: (202) 502– 

8663, fax: (202) 273–0873, e-mail: 

DataClearance@ferc.gov]. Comments on 

the requirements of this Final Rule may 

also be sent to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission]. For security reasons, 

comments should be sent by e-mail to 

OMB at: oira submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Please reference OMB Control Number 

1902–0246 and the docket number of 

this final rulemaking in your 

submission. 

IV. Environmental Analysis 

33. The Commission is required to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

or an Environmental Impact Statement 

for any action that may have a 

significant adverse effect on the human 

environment.19 The action taken in the 

Final Rule fall within the categorical 

exclusion in the Commission’s 

regulations for rules that are clarifying, 

corrective or procedural, for information 

gathering, analysis, and 

dissemination.20 Accordingly, neither 

an environmental impact statement nor 

an environmental assessment is 

required. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

34. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 21 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 proposed rule and that minimize any 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA) Office of Size Standards develops 

the numerical definition of a small 

business.22 The SBA has established a 

size standard for electric utilities, 

stating that a firm is small if, including 

its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in 

the transmission, generation and/or 

distribution of electric energy for sale 

and its total electric output for the 

preceding twelve months did not exceed 

four million megawatt hours.23

35. Most of the entities (i.e., reliability 

coordinators and balancing authorities) 

to which the requirements of this Rule 

would apply do not fall within the 

definition of small entities. The 

Commission estimates that only 2–4 of 

the 35 balancing authorities are small 

and that the economic impact on each 

of these is $160 per year. The 

Commission does not consider this to be 

a significant economic impact. Based on 

the foregoing, the Commission certifies 

that this Rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required. 

VI. Document Availability 

36. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through 

FERC’s Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) 

and in FERC’s Public Reference Room 

during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First 

Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 

20426. 

37. From FERC’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. 

38. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during 

normal business hours from FERC 

Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

VII. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

39. These regulations are effective 

May 24, 2011. The Commission notes 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
16696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

that although the determinations made 

in this Final Rule are effective May 24, 

2011, regional Reliability Standard IRO– 

006–WECC–1 approved in this Final 

Rule will not become effective until the 

first day of the first quarter after 

applicable regulatory approval. 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 351 of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 

By the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7040 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0794; FRL–9279–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on November 5, 2010 and 

concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 

carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of sulfur 

(SO2) and particulate matter emissions 

from boilers, steam generators and 

process heaters greater than 5.0 MMbtu/ 

hour. We are approving a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on April 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0794 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3284, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68294), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rule into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ................................. 4320 Advance Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters greater than 5.0 MMbtu/hr.10/16/08 03/17/09 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from 

Paul Cort, Earthjustice; letter dated 

December 6, 2010 and received 

December 6, 2010. The comments and 

our responses are summarized below. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice supported 

EPA’s proposed approval of Rule 4320 

and EPA’s assertion that the fee 

provisions in the rule fail to comply 

with EPA policy on economic incentive 

programs. 

Response #1: No response needed. 

Comment #2: Earthjustice asked EPA 

to clarify that no emission reduction 

credit is appropriate for Rule 4320 until 

SJVAPCD submits additional 

documentation, subject to public review 

and comment, including documentation 

demonstrating permanent, enforceable, 

surplus and quantifiable CO and NOX

reductions associated with fees paid in 

lieu of direct control of these and 

documentation demonstrating the PM 

reductions associated with SO2 controls. 

Response #2: The discussion of SIP 

credits in our TSD and proposal was 

included for information only and does 

not affect our action on Rule 4320. Our 

proposed approval of Rule 4320 relied 

largely on a finding that the rule 

improved the SIP, and not on if or how 

many emission reductions the rule 

provides. Comments on whether 

SJVAPCD ensures adequate emission 

reductions are more appropriate to 

action on plans. When EPA approves a 

plan, we are effectively approving the 

emission reduction assumptions for 

specific rules that it is based on. 

Proposed rulemaking on a plan is 

subject to notice and comment and 

would be the appropriate forum to raise 

issues on whether reductions from 

specific rules should be credited to the 

SIP. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rule complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving this rule 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES