Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81157 

1 16 U.S.C. 824o. 

2North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 

FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117 

FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. 

v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

3NERC designates the version number of a 

Reliability Standard as the last digit of the 

Reliability Standard number. Therefore, original 

Reliability Standards end with ‘‘–0’’ and modified 

version one Reliability Standards end with ‘‘–1.’’ 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Agency Web Site: Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format, at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

copy of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

These requirements can be found on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or 

via phone from FERC Online Support at 

202–502–6652 or toll-free at 1–866– 

208–3676. 

28. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

on this proposal are not required to 

serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

IX. Document Availability 

29. 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. 

30. 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. 

31. 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. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40 

Electric power; Electric utilities; 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements by direction of the 

Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32356 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM09–14–000] 

Version One Regional Reliability 

Standard for Transmission Operations 

December 16, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) proposes to approve 

TOP–007–WECC–1 (System Operating 

Limits) developed by the Western 

Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) 

and submitted to the Commission for 

approval by the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation. The revised 

regional Reliability Standard would 

replace the approved WECC TOP–STD– 

007–0. While we propose to approve the 

regional Reliability Standard, as 

discussed in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, TOP–007–WECC–1 raises 

some concerns about which the 

Commission requests additional 

information. The Commission also 

proposes to direct WECC to develop 

certain limited modifications to the 

regional Reliability Standard and the 

associated violation risk factor and 

violation severity levels as discussed 

herein. 

DATES: Comments are due February 25, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and in 

accordance with the requirements 

posted on the Commission’s Web site 

http://www.ferc.gov. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Agency Web Site: Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format, at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

copy of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

These requirements can be found on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp or 

via phone from FERC Online Support at 

202–502–6652 or toll-free at 1–866– 

208–3676. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mindi Sauter (Legal Information), Office 

of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6830. 

E. Nick Henery (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, Division 

of Policy Analysis and Rulemaking, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8636. 

Danny Johnson (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, Division 

of Reliability Standards, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–8892. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

1. Under section 215 of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission 

proposes to approve TOP–007–WECC–1 

(System Operating Limits) developed by 

the Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council (WECC) and submitted to the 

Commission for approval by the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC), which the 

Commission has certified as the Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO) 

responsible for developing and 

enforcing mandatory Reliability 

Standards.2 The revised regional 

Reliability Standard, designated by 

WECC as TOP–007–WECC–1,3 would 

replace WECC TOP–STD–007–0. While 

we propose to approve the regional 

Reliability Standard, we are concerned 

about certain provisions of TOP–007– 

WECC–1, about which we request 

additional information in public 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
81158 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

4See 16 U.S.C. 824o(e). 

5 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4). A Regional Entity is an 

entity that has been approved by the Commission 

to enforce Reliability Standards under delegated 

authority from the ERO. See 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(7) 

and (e)(4). 

6 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(3). 

7 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2). 

8North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,060 (2007). 

9North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

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

10 Id. P 104. 

11 Id. P 105–110. 

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

¶ 31,242, at P 946 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 

693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). The Commission 

explained, ‘‘IRO–005–1 could be interpreted as 

allowing a system operator to respect IROLs in two 

possible ways: (1) Allowing IROL to be exceeded 

during normal operations, i.e., prior to a 

contingency, provided that corrective actions are 

taken within 30 minutes or (2) exceeding IROL only 

after a contingency and subsequently returning the 

system to a secure condition as soon as possible, 

but no longer than 30 minutes. Thus, the system 

can be one contingency away from potential 

cascading failure if operated under the first 

interpretation and two contingencies away from 

cascading failure under the second interpretation.’’ 

Id. at n. 303. 

13North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 107. 14 Id. P 108–109. 15 Id. P 55, 110. 16North American Electric Reliability Corp., 

Compliance Filing, Docket No. RR07–11–000 (filed 

July 9, 2007). 

comment. The Commission also 

proposes to direct WECC to develop 

certain limited modifications to the 

regional Reliability Standard and the 

associated violation risk factor and 

violation severity levels as discussed 

herein. 

I. Background 

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards 

2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a 

Commission-certified Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO) to 

develop mandatory and enforceable 

Reliability Standards, which are subject 

to Commission review and approval. 

Once approved, the Reliability 

Standards may be enforced by the ERO, 

subject to Commission oversight, or by 

the Commission independently.4

3. Reliability Standards that the ERO 

proposes to the Commission may 

include Reliability Standards that are 

proposed to the ERO by a Regional 

Entity to be effective in that region.5 In 

Order No. 672, the Commission noted 

that: 

As a general matter, we will accept the 

following two types of regional differences, 

provided they are otherwise just, reasonable, 

not unduly discriminatory or preferential and 

in the public interest, as required under the 

statute: (1) A regional difference that is more 

stringent than the continent-wide Reliability 

Standard, including a regional difference that 

addresses matters that the continent-wide 

Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a 

regional Reliability Standard that is 

necessitated by a physical difference in the 

Bulk-Power System. 

When the ERO reviews a regional 

Reliability Standard that would be 

applicable on an interconnection-wide 

basis and that has been proposed by a 

Regional Entity organized on an 

Interconnection-wide basis, the ERO 

must rebuttably presume that the 

regional Reliability Standard is just, 

reasonable, not unduly discriminatory 

or preferential, and in the public 

interest.6 In turn, the Commission must 

give ‘‘due weight’’ to the technical 

expertise of the ERO and of a Regional 

Entity organized on an interconnectionwide basis.7

B. WECC Regional Reliability Standards 

4. On April 19, 2007, the Commission 

accepted delegation agreements between 

NERC and each of eight Regional 

Entities.8 In the order, the Commission 

accepted WECC as a Regional Entity 

organized on an Interconnection-wide 

basis. As a Regional Entity, WECC 

oversees Bulk-Power System reliability 

in the Western Interconnection. The 

WECC region encompasses nearly 1.8 

million square miles, including 14 

western U.S. states, the Canadian 

provinces of Alberta and British 

Columbia, and the northern portion of 

Baja California in Mexico. 

5. In June 2007, the Commission 

approved eight regional Reliability 

Standards that apply in the Western 

Interconnection, including WECC TOP– 

STD–007–0.9 Currently effective WECC 

TOP–STD–007–0 has the stated purpose 

of ensuring that the Western 

Interconnection’s operating transfer 

capability limits requirements are not 

exceeded. In approving the current 

regional Reliability Standard, the 

Commission found that it was more 

stringent than the corresponding NERC 

TOP–007–0. The Commission noted 

that, ‘‘[i]n particular, the imposition of a 

20-minute limit [maximum for 

exceeding a stability-limited operating 

transfer capability] is more restrictive 

than NERC’s TOP–007–0 and is a 

prudent means of limiting the risk of 

blackouts, consistent with sound 

engineering principles.’’ 10

6. In the June 2007 Order, the 

Commission also expressed concern that 

WECC–TOP–007–0 may be inconsistent 

with NERC IRO–005–1 depending upon 

the interpretation of IRO–005–1.11

Previously, in Order No. 693, the 

Commission discussed the possibility 

that NERC IRO–005–1 could be 

interpreted as allowing a system 

operator to respect interconnection 

reliability operating limits in two 

different ways.12 In the June 2007 Order, 

the Commission noted that the wording 

of WECC–TOP–007–0 Requirement 

WR1.b, which provides that ‘‘[t]he 

interconnected power system shall 

remain stable upon loss of any one 

single element without system 

cascading that could result in the 

successive loss of additional elements,’’ 

suggests that WECC expects that 

stability-limited system operating limits 

will be addressed in such a manner that 

the system is two contingencies away 

from a cascading failure. The 

Commission noted, however, that 

Measure WM1 of WECC–TOP–007–0 

may not be consistent with Requirement 

WR1.b, since it states that ‘‘[a]ctual 

power flow on all transmission paths 

shall at no time exceed the [operating 

transfer capability] for more than 20 

minutes for paths that are stability 

limited, or more than 30 minutes for 

paths that are thermally limited. ’’ 13 The 

Commission further stated that the 

Measure appears more consistent with 

the less conservative interpretation of 

the NERC IRO–005–1 and could allow 

the power system to be operated one 

contingency away from a cascading 

outage. Thus, the Commission directed 

NERC and WECC to: (1) Submit a filing 

within 30 days of the date of the order 

explaining whether Requirement WR1.b 

is consistent with the second 

interpretation of NERC IRO–005–1 (two 

contingencies away from cascading 

failure); (2) clarify any inconsistency 

between Requirement WR1.b and 

corresponding Measure WM1; and (3) 

ensure that the requirements currently 

set forth in Measures WM1 are set forth 

in the Standard’s Requirements and that 

corresponding Measures simply 

quantify the frequency, duration and 

magnitude of the violations as 

determined by the Requirements.14

7. The Commission also directed 

WECC to develop modifications to 

WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 to address 

certain shortcomings identified by 

NERC with regard to such matters as 

format, aligning WECC regional 

definitions with the NERC Glossary of 

Terms Used in Reliability Standards, 

and removing compliance and measure 

references.15

8. In response, NERC submitted a 

compliance filing (Compliance Filing) 

on July 9, 2007.16 NERC explained that 

‘‘a WECC reliability coordinator must 

take immediate action, initially through 

the transmission operators, and then 

issues directives, to return the system to 

a secure condition as soon as possible 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81159 

17 Id. at 5. 

18 Id. at 8. 

19North American Reliability Corp., March 25, 

2009 Petition for Approval of Proposed Western 

Electric Coordinating Council Regional Reliability 

Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 (NERC Petition). The 

proposed new Reliability Standards and other 

modified Reliability Standards are not codified in 

the CFR and are not attached to the NOPR. They 

are, however, available on the Commission’s 

eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. 

RM09–14–000 and are available on the ERO’s Web 

site, http://www.nerc.com. 

20See WECC Transfer Path Table, available at: 

http://www.wecc.biz/Docs/Documents/ 

Table%20Major%20Paths%204–28–08.doc. The 

Transfer Path Table includes a footnote that 

provides, ‘‘[f]or an explanation of terms, path 

numbers, and definition for the paths refer to 

WECC’s Path Rating Catalog.’’ 

21Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric 

Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the 

Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of 

Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, at P 323–337 (2006), order 

on reh’g, Order No. 672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,212 (2006). 

22NERC Petition at 9. 

23NERC Petition at 11–12 (footnote omitted). 

24See NERC Petition, Exhibit C, Comparison of 

WECC Standard TOP–STD–007–0 to proposed 

WECC Standard TOP–007–WECC–1, beginning at 

page 86 of the NERC Petition as it appears in the 

Commission’s eLibrary pdf document. 

after identification of a transfer path 

exceeding its SOL/IROL’’ in accordance 

with WECC procedure RC–003–1, 

entitled WECC Reliability Coordinator 

Monitoring and Directive Procedure.17

NERC continued, stating that ‘‘WECC 

operates its system in such a manner 

that the system is at least two 

contingencies away from a cascading 

failure.’’ NERC further explained that, 

there is no inconsistency between IRO–005– 

1 and WECC–TOP–STD–007–0. In order to 

support Requirement WR1.b in the WECC– 

TOP–STD–007–0 regional Reliability 

Standard, the system cannot be operated 

such that a single contingency will cause 

cascading of the system. This is implicit in 

the identification of the [operating transfer 

capability] limit derivation. If, however, there 

is a flow that exceeds the [operating transfer 

capability] limit, the transmission operator 

must take (proactive) immediate corrective 

action within 20 minutes for stability-limited 

paths and 30 minutes for thermally limited 

paths to return the system to below the 

[operating transfer capability] limit, thus 

protecting the system from potential 

cascading for a subsequent contingency.18

Proposed WECC Regional Reliability 

Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 

9. On March 25, 2009, NERC 

submitted a petition to the Commission 

seeking approval of proposed TOP–007– 

WECC–1 and requesting the concurrent 

retirement of the currently effective 

TOP–STD–007–0.19 NERC requests an 

effective date for the proposed regional 

Reliability Standard of 90 calendar days 

after receipt of applicable regulatory 

approval. 

10. Proposed TOP–007–WECC–1 

would apply to transmission operators 

for the transmission paths in the most 

current table titled ‘‘Major WECC 

Transfer Paths in the Bulk Electric 

System’’ (WECC Transfer Path Table) 

located on the WECC Web site.20 NERC 

states that the primary purpose of the 

regional Reliability Standard is to 

ensure that actual flows and associated 

scheduled flows on Major WECC 

Transfer Paths do not exceed system 

operating limits for more than 30 

minutes. 

11. NERC states that the proposed 

regional Reliability Standard satisfies 

the factors, set forth in Order No. 672, 

that the Commission considers when 

determining whether a proposed 

Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, 

not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential and in the public interest.21

According to NERC, proposed TOP– 

007–WECC–1 is clear and unambiguous 

regarding what is required and who is 

required to comply with the Standard. 

NERC states that proposed TOP–007– 

WECC–1 has clear and objective 

measures for compliance and achieves a 

reliability goal (namely, that operating 

power flows along major paths are 

within not only interconnection 

reliability operating limits but also 

system operating limits) effectively and 

efficiently. NERC also states that the 

requirements proposed in TOP–007– 

WECC–1 are not covered by a NERC 

Reliability Standard and are intended to 

be more stringent than or cover areas 

not covered by the continent-wide 

NERC Reliability Standard TOP–007–0. 

NERC also notes that its public posting 

of the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard did not elicit any significant 

technical objection.22

12. Proposed TOP–007–WECC–01 

contains two requirements and one subrequirement, summarized as follows: 

Requirement R1: Requires a 

transmission operator of a major WECC 

transfer path to take immediate action to 

return actual flows that are in excess of 

the path’s system operating limits to 

within the system operating limits in no 

longer than 30 minutes. 

Requirement R2: Requires a 

transmission operator of a major WECC 

transfer path to ensure that the net 

scheduled interchange across the path 

does not exceed the path’s system 

operating limits, when the transmission 

operator implements its real-time 

schedules for the next hour. 

Sub-requirement R2.1: Requires a 

transmission operator of a major WECC 

transfer path to adjust the net scheduled 

interchange across the path within 30 

minutes so that it does not exceed the 

path’s new system operating limit value 

if the system operating limit decreases 

within 20 minutes before the start of the 

hour. 

13. In the Petition, NERC asserts that 

the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard covers matters not covered by 

a NERC Reliability Standard and is more 

stringent than the corresponding 

continent-wide Reliability Standard, 

TOP–007–0. NERC explains: 

Whereas, NERC Reliability Standard TOP– 

007–0—Reporting SOL and IROL Violations 

Requirement R2 requires the Transmission 

Operator to return its transmission path flows 

to within Interconnection Reliability 

Operating Limits (‘‘IROLs’’) as soon as 

possible, but no longer than 30 minutes 

following a contingency or event, TOP–007– 

WECC–1 Requirement R1 requires the 

Transmission Operator of the major WECC 

transfer paths to take immediate action to 

return the actual power flow to within 

[system operating limits] such that at no time 

shall the power flow exceed the [system 

operating limits] for longer than 30 minutes. 

There is no NERC requirement to return the 

transmission system to within [system 

operating limits] within a time certain, only 

a requirement to report to the Reliability 

Coordinator (TOP–007–0 Requirement R1). 

Depending on the current system conditions, 

the limits for the paths identified in this 

TOP–007–WECC–1 standard are [system 

operating limits]s that would not result in 

cascading outages. TOP–007–WECC–1 

specifically applies to the major paths in the 

Western Interconnection regardless of 

whether the limit is defined as an IROL or 

an [system operating limits]. TOP–007– 

WECC–1 Requirement R2 requires the 

Transmission Operator of the major WECC 

transfer paths to ensure that Net Scheduled 

Interchange for power flow over an 

interconnection or transmission path does 

not exceed the path’s [system operating 

limits] when the Transmission Operator 

implements its real-time schedules for the 

next hour. The requirement for maintaining 

Net Scheduled Interchange within a path’s 

[system operating limits] is also not covered 

in the NERC Reliability Standards. This 

requirement is important to the Western 

Interconnection because scheduling 

transmission paths beyond their limits could 

adversely affect actual flows on parallel paths 

by creating unscheduled flow that may 

jeopardize system reliability.23

14. NERC also provides, as Exhibit C 

to the NERC Petition, a Record of 

Development of Proposed Reliability 

Standard. Included in the 

approximately 100-page development 

record is a ‘‘mapping document’’ 

prepared by the WECC standards 

drafting team that compares the related 

provisions of the currently-effective 

regional Reliability Standard to the 

modified Standard and discusses the 

‘‘proposed change and impact.’’ 24


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
81160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

25North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 108. 

26Compliance Filing at 4. 

II. Discussion 

15. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), 

we propose to approve TOP–007– 

WECC–1 as just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in 

the public interest. As indicated above, 

the proposed TOP–007–WECC–1 

appears to cover topics not covered by 

the corresponding NERC Reliability 

Standard, TOP–007–0, thus meeting a 

criterion for approving a regional 

difference. Specifically, Requirement R1 

would require the transmission operator 

of a major WECC transfer path to take 

immediate action to return the actual 

power flow to within system operating 

limits such that at no time shall the 

power flow exceed the system operating 

limits for longer than 30 minutes. While 

the NERC Reliability Standards do have 

a requirement to report exceeding 

system operating limits to the reliability 

coordinator, they do not have a 

requirement to return the transmission 

system to within system operating limits 

within a time certain. Likewise, 

proposed Requirement R2 of the 

regional Reliability Standard would 

prohibit the transmission operator from 

having the net scheduled interchange 

for power flow over an interconnection 

or transmission path above the path’s 

system operating limit when the 

transmission operator implements its 

real-time schedules for the next hour, 

while there currently is no such 

requirement in a NERC Standard. In 

addition to these stringencies, the 

proposed regional Reliability Standards 

addresses modifications directed by the 

Commission in the June 2007 Order. For 

these reasons, the Commission proposes 

to approve TOP–007–WECC–1. 

16. However, below, we ask WECC, 

the ERO and other interested entities to 

provide further clarification regarding 

several aspects of the proposed regional 

Reliability Standard. Our intent in 

seeking comments is to better 

understand certain aspects of the 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

that are not fully explained in the NERC 

Petition. Specifically, we request in 

comments additional information about 

the following concerns: (1) Whether the 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

would allow transmission operators to 

operate the system at a single 

contingency away from cascading 

failure for up to 30 minutes; (2) the 

change in the time allowed to respond 

to a stability-limited system operating 

limit violation from 20 to 30 minutes; 

(3) the substitution of the term ‘‘system 

operating limit’’ for the term ‘‘operating 

transfer capability’’; and (4) replacement 

of the WECC Transfer Path Table 

attachment to the regional Reliability 

Standard with an internet link. The 

Commission also proposes to direct 

WECC to develop certain limited 

modifications to the regional Reliability 

Standard and the associated violation 

risk factor and violation severity levels 

as discussed herein. 

A. Operating One Contingency Away 

From a Cascading Outage 

17. As discussed above, when 

approving TOP–STD–007–0, the 

Commission noted its concern that 

Measure WM1 may be interpreted in a 

way that is less stringent than the NERC 

IRO–005–1, which, in turn, could allow 

the system to be operated one 

contingency away from a potential 

cascading failure.25 NERC explained in 

its July 2007 Compliance Filing that, 

under Requirement WR1.b of TOP– 

STD–007–0, transmission operators 

must operate the system in a manner 

that it is at least two contingencies away 

from cascading at all times during 

steady state operating conditions.26

Proposed Regional Reliability Standard 

18. Requirement R1 of TOP–007– 

WECC–1 states, ‘‘[w]hen the actual 

power flow exceeds an [system 

operating limit] for a Transmission path, 

the Transmission Operators shall take 

immediate action to reduce the actual 

power flow across the path such that at 

no time shall the power flow for the 

Transmission path exceed the [system 

operating limit] for more than 30 

minutes.’’ NERC notes that the 

corresponding NERC Reliability 

Standard, TOP–007–0 does not 

currently cover this requirement, 

explaining that NERC TOP–007–0 does 

not require the transmission operators to 

return the transmission system to within 

system operating limits within a time 

certain. Therefore, the proposed TOP– 

007–WECC–1 appears to meet a 

criterion for approving a regional 

difference. The proposed TOP–007– 

WECC–1 does not include the provision 

of current Requirement WR1, which, in 

TOP–STD–007–0, requires that ‘‘[t]he 

interconnected power system shall 

remain stable upon loss of any one 

single element without system 

cascading that could result in the 

successive loss of additional elements.’’ 

The mapping document included 

within Exhibit C to the Petition explains 

that the provision was eliminated 

because ‘‘inclusion would be redundant 

with similar criteria in other NERC 

standards,’’ such as NERC FAC–011 

(including Regional Differences 1.1 and 

1.2), FAC–014, and TOP–004. 

Commission Concerns 

19. A plain reading of the proposed 

regional Reliability Standard’s 

Requirement R1 does not explicitly 

require a transmission operator to 

operate the system in a manner that is 

two contingencies from a cascading 

outage. Specifically, Requirement R1 

appears to allow the power flow, during 

steady state conditions, to exceed a 

stability-limited system operating limit 

for up to 30 minutes, which could mean 

that the system would be one 

contingency away from a cascading 

failure for that period of time. Although 

WECC clarified in its July 2007 

Compliance Filing that the WECC 

transmission grid must be operated such 

that no cascading occurs following a 

single contingency, the proposed 

Reliability Standard does not re-affirm 

this understanding. Indeed, the 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

could be interpreted as affirmatively 

permitting the power system to be 

operated one contingency away from a 

cascading outage, which is the same 

concern the Commission raised with 

respect to the current regional 

Reliability Standard. Our concern is 

heightened when Requirement R1 is 

considered in conjunction with the 

NERC TOP–004, Requirement R2, which 

states that ‘‘[e]ach Transmission 

Operator shall operate so that 

instability, uncontrolled separation, or 

cascading outages will not occur as a 

result of the most severe single 

contingency.’’ Read in this light, the 

proposed revision to the language 

currently contained in Requirement 

WR1 of TOP–STD–007–0 could result in 

transmission operators having two 

apparently conflicting sets of 

operational requirements. Specifically, 

the national Reliability Standard 

prohibits operating a single contingency 

away from cascading outage while the 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

seems to permit such operation. The 

Commission requests comments on this 

issue. 

B. Change in Response Time From 20 to 

30 Minutes 

20. TOP–STD–007–0 provides that 

transmission operators shall return 

actual flows to within the path’s 

operating transfer capability ratings in 

no more than 20 minutes on stabilitylimited paths, and within 30 minutes for 

thermally-limited paths. When NERC 

filed TOP–STD–007–0 for Commission 

approval, WECC explained that the 20 

minute time limit for responding to 

stability-limited operating transfer 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81161 

27See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 

119 FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 102. 

28A stability limit is determined by a voltage or 

frequency stability constraint, and loading the line 

above this limit for any amount of time could result 

in instability and cascading outages. A thermal 

limit is determined by how much a line can 

overheat without damaging equipment; lines that 

are thermally-limited can have short-term 

emergency limits that are higher than the normal 

line rating, since heating occurs over a period of 

time. 

29NERC Petition at 27–28. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 28. 32 Version One Regional Reliability Standard for 

Resource and Demand Balancing, 133 FERC 

¶ 61,063 at P 30 (2010). 

33NERC Petition at 28. 

34As mentioned previously, the WECC Path 

Rating Catalog is referenced in a footnote in Table 

1 of the currently-effective regional Reliability 

Standard. 

35WECC Philosophy of SOL & IROL Conditions, 

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

StandingCommittees/OC/OPS/Lists/Calendar/ 

Attachments/8/ 

WECC%20Philosophy%20of%20SOL-IROL.pdf. 

capability exceedances was based on the 

lessons learned in the two major 

disturbances in 1996.27 The 

Commission notes that in the Western 

Interconnection a significant number of 

transmission paths are voltage or 

frequency stability limited, in contrast 

to other regions of the Bulk-Power 

System where transmission paths more 

often are thermally limited.28

21. Transmission operators generally 

need to respond to disturbances that 

result in a ‘‘stability-limited’’ 

transmission path overload in a shorter 

time frame than a disturbance that 

results in a ‘‘thermally-limited’’ 

transmission path overload because the 

stability-limited risk is more systemic in 

nature. The requirement to bring the 

power flow across a stability-limited 

transmission path to within the path’s 

operating transfer capability rating 

within 20 minutes following a 

disturbance improves reliability by 

decreasing the likelihood that the BulkPower System will be operated a single 

contingency away from a cascading 

outage, thus preventing adverse 

reliability impacts, as following a 

disturbance. 

Proposed Regional Reliability Standard 

22. The proposed revised regional 

Reliability Standard would replace the 

20-minute limit for returning actual 

flows on stability-limited paths to 

within system operating limit ratings 

with a 30-minute limit. In its Petition, 

NERC indicates that the first draft of the 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

included the differing time limits (20/30 

minutes) to return to within system 

operating limit, but that comments 

indicated that the 10 minute difference 

was not based on any technically sound 

reasoning and would create an 

additional operational step to determine 

the cause of the limit before taking 

corrective action. The Petition further 

indicates that, based on these 

comments, the drafting team modified 

the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard to have one consistent 30 

minute limit for returning actual flows 

to within both thermally and stabilitylimited system operating limits. 

23. In its evaluation of the proposed 

regional Reliability Standard, NERC’s 

general observation was that proposed 

TOP–007–WECC–1 was significantly 

modified from TOP–STD–007–0. 

Specifically, NERC commented to 

WECC on the technical modification of 

the requirement that the actual power 

flow on all transmission paths shall at 

no time exceed the operating transfer 

capability for more than 20 minutes for 

paths that are stability limited or for 

more than 30 minutes for paths that are 

thermally limited.29 NERC stated that it 

was unclear whether the proposed 

requirement was more stringent than the 

NERC requirements.30

24. In response to NERC’s evaluation, 

WECC stated that the currently-effective 

regional Reliability Standard creates 

confusion because system conditions 

may change the limiting conditions on 

a path, and this resulted in path 

operators taking ‘‘more drastic actions’’ 

to respond to a contingency within 20 

minutes, which may put the system at 

greater risk. WECC indicated that the 

standard drafting team determined that 

changing the Standard from a 20 to 30 

minute response time is ‘‘insignificant in 

terms of the probability of the next 

contingency occurring.’’ 31

25. NERC’s Petition states that NERC 

TOP–007–0 does not contain a 

requirement that transmission operators 

reduce actual flows to within thermallylimited system operating limits within 

30 minutes. Thus, according to NERC, 

the change from 20 to 30 minutes does 

not constitute a lowest common 

denominator approach, but rather 

provides clarity and eliminates the need 

to determine the limiting condition 

when a contingency occurs, thereby 

allowing transmission operators to 

concentrate on resolving the overload 

condition. 

Commission Concerns 

26. The Commission seeks additional 

information to assess whether 

increasing the time to respond to 

stability-limited system operating limit 

violations will affect the reliable 

operation of the Western 

Interconnection. As the Commission 

previously has noted, we will evaluate 

such proposed changes, including those 

that may make a standard less stringent, 

on their merit so long as adequate 

reliability is maintained.32 In this case, 

the Commission is proposing to approve 

TOP–007–WECC–1; however, the 

technical information provided in the 

record to date does not demonstrate to 

our satisfaction that the proposed 

regional Reliability Standard is 

sufficient to ensure reliability in the 

WECC region. 

27. Therefore, we request that WECC, 

NERC and other interested entities 

provide in their comments an 

explanation and supporting technical 

data demonstrating that changing from a 

20 to 30 minute response time is 

‘‘insignificant in terms of the probability 

of the next contingency occurring.’’ 33

For example, WECC could provide 

historical outage data showing instances 

where an event caused a stabilitylimited operating transfer limit to be 

exceeded, the amount of time it took the 

transmission operator to reduce flows 

and, if the transmission operator did not 

reduce flows within 20 minutes, 

whether a second contingency occurred 

after the 20 minutes. WECC also could 

provide information or data 

demonstrating that the WECC region has 

added facilities to reduce the number of 

stability-limited ‘‘rated transfer paths;’’ 

the WECC region has adopted new 

operational procedures or new 

protection schemes; or statistical 

operating data showing that the 20 

minute response time was excessive for 

the Bulk-Power System in the West. 

28. Additionally, based on the current 

record provided by NERC, we are not 

persuaded by the explanation that the 

current Reliability Standard’s bifurcated 

response times cause confusion. We 

understand that, in practice, a 

transmission operator in the Western 

Interconnection can use the WECC Path 

Rating Catalog 34 to determine if a rated 

system path is either thermally or 

stability limited for baseline system 

configurations shown in the Catalog, 

and will have previously determined 

operating limitations based on 

previously conducted contingency 

studies. The ‘‘WECC Philosophy of SOL 

and IROL Conditions’’ states that 

WECC’s operating philosophy is to only 

operate in conditions that have been 

studied.35 In fact, during the Reliability 

Standard development process, one 

commenter stated that: ‘‘[t]oday, we can 

tell if the 20 or 30 minutes applies based 

on the statements in the Path Rating 

Catalog, which classify each of the Paths 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
81162 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

36NERC Petition, Exhibit C at page 50 of the 

NERC Petition as it appears in the Commission’s 

eLibrary pdf document (Sierra Pacific Resources 

Transmission comments to WECC). 

37See NERC Petition, Exhibit C, Comparison of 

WECC Standard TOP–STD–007–0 to proposed 

WECC Standard TOP–007–WECC–1, beginning at 

page 86 of the NERC Petition as it appears in the 

Commission’s eLibrary pdf document. 

38WECC Philosophy of SOL & IROL Conditions, 

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

StandingCommittees/OC/OPS/Lists/Calendar/ 

Attachments/8/ 

WECC%20Philosophy%20of%20SOL-IROL.pdf. 

39NERC Petition at 8. 40 Id. 

as either stability limited or thermally 

limited.’’ 36

C. System Operating Limit Versus 

Operating Transfer Capability 

29. TOP–STD–007–0 has the stated 

purpose of ensuring that ‘‘the Operating 

Transfer Capability limits requirements 

of the Western Interconnection are not 

exceeded.’’ The regional Reliability 

Standard defines operating transfer 

capability as ‘‘the maximum value of the 

most critical system operating 

parameter(s) which meets: (a) 

Precontingency criteria as determined 

by equipment loading capability and 

acceptable voltage conditions, (b) 

transient criteria as determined by 

equipment loading capability and 

acceptable voltage conditions, (c) 

transient performance criteria, and (d) 

post-contingency loading and voltage 

criteria.’’ 

30. The single requirement of TOP– 

STD–007–0 provides in part: 

Actual power flow and net scheduled 

power flow over an interconnection or 

transfer path shall be maintained within 

Operating Transfer Capability Limits 

(‘‘OTC’’). The OTC is the maximum amount 

of actual power that can be transferred over 

direct or parallel transmission elements 

comprising: 

• An interconnection from one 

Transmission Operator area to another 

Transmission Operator area; or 

• A transfer path within a Transmission 

Operator area. 

The net schedule over an interconnection or 

transfer path within a Transmission Operator 

area shall not exceed the OTC, regardless of 

the prevailing actual power flow on the 

interconnection or transfer path. 

31. The NERC Glossary defines 

‘‘System Operating Limit’’ as ‘‘the value 

(such as MW, MVar, Amperes, 

Frequency or Volts) that satisfies the 

most limiting of the prescribed 

operating criteria for a specified system 

configuration to ensure operation within 

acceptable reliability criteria. System 

Operating Limits are based upon certain 

operating criteria. These include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Facility Ratings (Applicable preand post-Contingency equipment or 

facility ratings) 

• Transient Stability Ratings 

(Applicable pre- and post-Contingency 

Stability Limits) 

• Voltage Stability Ratings 

(Applicable pre- and post-Contingency 

Voltage Stability) 

• System Voltage Limits (Applicable 

pre- and post-Contingency Voltage 

Limits).’’ 

NERC Petition 

32. As mentioned above, proposed 

TOP–007–WECC–1 has the stated 

purpose of ensuring that ‘‘when actual 

flows on Major WECC Transfer Paths 

exceed system operating limits (SOLs), 

their associated schedules and actual 

flows are not exceeded for longer than 

a specified time.’’ Requirement R1 of the 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

requires that, ‘‘when the actual power 

flow exceeds a [system operating limit] 

for a Transmission path, the 

transmission operator shall take 

immediate action to reduce the actual 

power flow across the path.* * *.’’ 

33. As noted above, the NERC Petition 

includes, as Exhibit C, a Record of 

Development of Proposed Reliability 

Standard, which includes a mapping 

document comparing the current 

regional Standard to the proposed 

Standard. The mapping document 

explains the drafting team’s actions and 

rationale for replacing the term 

‘‘operating transfer capability limit’’ with 

the term ‘‘system operating limit:’’ 

Removed definition of OTC and replaced 

OTC with SOL throughout the standard. 

Reasons included: 

1. Consistency with NERC standards, 

definitions and language. 

2. WECC Operating Committee adopted the 

document ‘‘WECC Philosophy of SOL & IROL 

Conditions’’ which states that a [sic] WECC 

operates only under SOL conditions. This 

statement is interpreted as declaring that a 

WECC OTC is an SOL. 

3. Removes ambiguity regarding 

applicability of other NERC standards.37

34. The WECC Philosophy of SOL and 

IROL Conditions, adopted by the WECC 

Operating Committee, states that ‘‘the 

WECC operating philosophy is to 

operate only in conditions that have 

been studied. Therefore, under these 

normal operating conditions, there are 

never IROL conditions (only SOL).’’ 38

Commission Concerns 

35. NERC states that, in addition to 

addressing the Commission’s concerns 

noted in the June 2007 Order, ‘‘WECC 

made substantial technical 

modifications to the proposed standard 

TOP–007–WECC–1 on its own 

accord.’’ 39 However, NERC does not 

effectively discuss the scope and 

substance of these substantial technical 

modifications. Rather, the NERC 

Petition explains that ‘‘because WECC 

followed its approved process in 

developing these modifications NERC 

continues to rebuttably presume this 

standard is just, reasonable, and not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential, 

and in the public interest.’’ 40 The NERC 

Petition does not explain the shift from 

ensuring that operating transfer 

capability limits are not exceeded to 

ensuring that system operating limits 

are not exceeded for longer than a 

specified time. It appears that the 

mapping document discussed above 

provides the only insight in the record 

into the shift in focus of the proposed 

regional Reliability Standard from 

operating transfer capability limits to 

system operating limits. 

36. We have concerns regarding 

whether it is accurate to equate 

operating transfer capability limits and 

system operating limits. The term 

system operating limit is used in 

reference to a rated system path within 

the Western Interconnection and refers 

to the facility or element that presents 

the most limiting of the prescribed 

operating criteria for the rated system 

path. The most limiting facility or 

element may be either thermally or 

stability limited. The operating transfer 

capability limit corresponds to the 

‘‘maximum amount of actual power 

transferred over direct or parallel 

transmission elements from one 

transmission operator to another 

transmission operator.’’ While these two 

terms relate to the same amount of 

power that may be transferred from one 

end of the rated system path to the 

other, the terms measure different 

things. When power flow on the 

facilities or elements that constitute a 

system operating limit reaches the 

system operating limit’s rating, the 

amount of power being transmitted 

across the facilities that constitute the 

rated system path becomes the operating 

transfer capability. This becomes 

problematic when the most limiting 

operating criteria, i.e., that creates the 

system operating limit, is not located on 

the rated system path, but rather is 

located on a neighboring non-rated 

system path facility or element. 

37. Based on the Commission’s 

understanding that there is a difference 

in these terms, we are concerned that 

the facilities that make up the system 

operating limit may not be part of those 

facilities that make up the rated system 

path, i.e., direct or parallel transmission 

elements comprising: (1) An 

interconnection from one transmission 

operator area to another transmission 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81163 

41NERC Petition, Exhibit C, at page 51, 53 of the 

NERC Petition as it appears in the Commission’s 

eLibrary pdf document (reply to questions from 

Sierra Pacific Resources Transmission and 

Bonneville Power Administration). 

42North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 54. 

operator area; or (2) a transfer path 

within a transmission operator area. 

When operating transfer capability is 

replaced by system operating limit, this 

requirement could result in a 

transmission operator being responsible 

for monitoring the flows on 

transmission system operating limit 

facilities that may not be on its ‘‘rated 

system path’’ as shown in the WECC 

Transfer Path Table and the referenced 

Path Rating Catalog. The Commission is 

further concerned that this scenario 

creates the possibility that an entity to 

which the regional Reliability Standard 

applies would be responsible for 

operating facilities that are not part of 

the rated path system shown in the 

WECC Transfer Path Table and Catalog. 

We request comments from NERC, 

WECC and other interested parties 

regarding these concerns. 

38. Similarly, we seek comment from 

NERC, WECC and others regarding the 

manner in which a transmission 

operator would address system 

operating limit facilities that are not part 

of the rated system path. We also 

request comments regarding the 

possibility that transmission operators 

may, under the proposed regional 

Reliability Standard, be responsible for 

facilities that they do not own and 

which are not on the rated system path 

but comprise the system operating limit. 

For commenters who believe that this is 

a problem, we also request comments 

regarding how to resolve this potential 

dilemma. 

39. Additionally, we are concerned 

that the use of the term system operating 

limit rather than the term operating 

transfer capability is inconsistent with 

the WECC Path Rating Catalog and 

would cause confusion. Historically, 

WECC has used the term operating 

transfer capability, and not system 

operating limit, to describe transmission 

limitations. Here, it appears that NERC 

and WECC are using the two terms 

interchangeably as equivalents. Thus, 

we request that WECC, NERC and other 

interested entities provide clarification 

regarding the proper understanding of 

the two terms 

D. Applicability 

40. TOP–STD–007–0 is applicable to 

transmission owners or operators that 

maintain transmission paths listed in 

the WECC Transfer Path Table, which is 

included as Attachment A to the 

Reliability Standard. The attachment 

identifies 40 major transmission paths 

in the Western Interconnection. 

Proposed Regional Reliability Standard 

41. Proposed TOP–WECC–007–1 

removes Attachment A and, instead, 

directs transmission owners to the most 

current WECC Transfer Path Table, 

which is available on the WECC Web 

site. The table currently posted on the 

WECC Web site identifies the same 40 

major paths as Attachment A to the 

approved regional Reliability Standard. 

42. The Petition does not explain why 

WECC moved the WECC Transfer Path 

Table from an attachment to a reference 

accessed through the WECC Web site. 

However, the mapping document 

discussed above states that: ‘‘[a]s an 

attachment to the standard, revisions to 

[the WECC Transfer Path Table] must be 

made through the standards process. By 

making [the WECC Transfer Path Table] 

a changing the [sic] referenced 

document in the WECC library, it opens 

the possibility of the table being 

changed through a WECC process 

without the need for changing the 

standard itself (for example, by 

recommendation of the OTCPC and 

approval by the Board).’’ In response to 

a stakeholder question during the 

development process, WECC indicated 

its belief that, under the proposed 

Standard, WECC Board approval would 

be required for changes to the Table, but 

NERC and Commission approvals 

would not be required.41

Commission Concerns 

43. The Commission is concerned that 

by referencing the WECC Transfer Path 

Table hosted on the WECC Web site, the 

applicability of TOP–007–WECC–1 

could change without Commission and 

industry notice and opportunity to 

respond. Under the currently-effective 

regional Reliability Standard, 

modifications to the WECC Transfer 

Path Table must be approved by the 

Commission. Accordingly, the 

Commission seeks comment on how 

NERC and WECC intend to develop and 

provide notice of proposed changes to 

the WECC Transfer Path Table. We also 

seek comment on how NERC and WECC 

will ensure that any resulting changes to 

the applicability of the Reliability 

Standard will not reduce its 

effectiveness. The Commission also 

requests comment regarding whether 

the current WECC regional Reliability 

Standards or related documents include 

the criterion that governs when paths 

are added or removed from the WECC 

Transfer Path Table and requests further 

information on the scope and 

application of the criterion. 

44. Additionally, under section 

215(d)(5) of the FPA, we propose to 

direct WECC to develop a modification 

to the Reliability Standard to address 

our concern. For example, WECC could 

include its criterion for identifying and 

modifying major transmission paths 

listed in the WECC Transfer Path Table 

and referenced Path Rating Catalog in 

the Reliability Standard, and make an 

informational filing with the 

Commission and NERC each time it 

makes a modification to the table or 

referenced catalog. Another option 

would be for WECC to file its criterion 

with the Commission and post revised 

transfer path tables and referenced 

catalogs on its Web site before they 

become effective with concurrent 

notification to NERC and the 

Commission. Alternatively, WECC 

could include the WECC Transfer Path 

Table as an attachment to the modified 

Reliability Standard. In this way, the 

Commission would be able to verify that 

the Regional Entity is applying the 

requirements of the regional Reliability 

Standard in a just and reasonable 

manner. 

E. Violation Risk Factors 

45. As part of its compliance and 

enforcement program, NERC must 

assign a ‘‘lower,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ or ‘‘high’’ 

violation risk factor to each requirement 

of each mandatory Reliability Standard 

to associate a violation of the 

Requirement with its potential impact 

on the reliability of the Bulk-Power 

System. In the June 2007 Order 

approving TOP–STD–007–0, the 

Commission noted that WECC’s existing 

sanctions table was inconsistent with 

NERC’s Sanction Guidelines, and 

directed WECC to develop violation risk 

factors that conform to corresponding 

NERC Reliability Standards.42

Proposed Regional Reliability Standard 

46. TOP–007–WECC–1 includes 

violation risk factors for both of the 

requirements, without a separate 

violation risk factor for sub-requirement 

R2.1. 

Commission Concerns 

47. TOP–007–WECC–1 and its 

continent-wide counterpart, NERC 

TOP–007–0, share the same reliability 

objective: To require transmission 

operators to take corrective action to 

reduce the amount of power flowing on 

a transmission path when it exceeds 

system operating limits or 

interconnection reliability operating 

limit to below the system operating 

limit or interconnection reliability 

operating limit and thereby minimize 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
81164 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

43See violation risk factors for TOP–007–0. 

44North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,145, at P 16, 25 (2007). 

45NERC Petition at 29. 

46 5 CFR 1320.11. 47 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 48North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 125–131. 

49Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FERC 

Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986–1990 

¶ 30,783 (1987). 

50 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). 

51 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

the amount of time the Bulk-Power 

System is operating one contingency 

away from a cascading outage. In its 

Petition, NERC does not explain why 

WECC assigned violation risk factors to 

the proposed Reliability Standard that 

differ from the corresponding continentwide Reliability Standard’s violation 

risk factors.43

48. We have noted previously that we 

expect consistency among violation risk 

factor assignments of Requirements that 

share the same reliability objective.44

Therefore, the Commission seeks 

comment from NERC and WECC 

regarding why the proposed regional 

Reliability Standard contains violation 

risk factors that are not aligned with 

those of the continent-wide Reliability 

Standard. The Commission proposes to 

direct WECC to modify the assigned 

violation risk factor for TOP–007– 

WECC–01, Requirements R1 and R2 

from ‘‘medium’’ and ‘‘low,’’ respectively, 

to ‘‘high’’ and requests comment on this 

proposal. 

F. Violation Severity Levels 

49. NERC, in its July 30, 2008 

evaluation of WECC’s proposed 

Reliability Standard, noted that the 

violation severity levels in the proposed 

Reliability Standard do not conform to 

NERC’s format.45

Proposed Regional Reliability Standard 

50. NERC has adopted a standard 

violation severity level table format that 

is used in its Reliability Standards, 

which also should be used in all 

regional Reliability Standards. In its 

evaluation of the proposed regional 

Reliability Standard, NERC noted that 

violation severity levels do not conform 

to the NERC format. The NERC Petition 

notes that WECC agreed to address the 

formatting issue during the next 

revision of the regional Reliability 

Standard. 

Commission Proposal 

51. The Commission agrees with 

NERC’s comments, and proposes to 

direct WECC to modify the violation 

severity levels associated with each 

requirement and sub-requirement of 

TOP–007–WECC–1, and submit them in 

the approved table format. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

52. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) regulations require that 

OMB approve certain reporting and 

recordkeeping (collections of 

information) imposed by an agency.46

The information contained here is also 

subject to review under section 3507(d) 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995.47 As stated above, the 

Commission previously approved the 

regional Reliability Standard that is the 

subject of the current rulemaking. In the 

event that the Commission, after 

receiving comments, determines to 

adopt the proposed revisions to the 

Reliability Standard, they would not 

substantially change the entities’ current 

reporting burden. Thus, the current 

proposal would not substantively affect 

the burden estimates relating to the 

currently effective version of the 

Reliability Standard previously 

approved.48

53. The proposed TOP–007–WECC–1, 

which would replace TOP–STD–007–0, 

does not modify or otherwise affect the 

burden related to the collection of 

information already in place. Thus, the 

proposed modifications to the current 

Reliability Standard will neither 

increase the reporting burden nor 

impose any additional information 

collection requirements. 

54. The Commission does not foresee 

any additional impact on the reporting 

burden for small businesses, because the 

proposed modifications do not increase 

the existing burden. However, we will 

submit this proposed rule to OMB for 

review. 

Title: Version One Regional 

Reliability Standard for Transmission 

Operations. 

Action: Proposed Collection FERC– 

725E. 

OMB Control No.: 1902–0246. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit institutions; not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Frequency of Responses: On occasion. 

Necessity of the Information: This 

proposed rule proposes to approve the 

requested modifications to a regional 

Reliability Standard pertaining to 

System Operating Limits. The proposed 

Reliability Standard is one of the 

standards that helps ensure the reliable 

operation of the Western 

Interconnection. 

Internal Review: The Commission has 

reviewed the proposed Reliability 

Standard and made a determination that 

its action is necessary to implement 

section 215 of the FPA. These 

requirements, if accepted, should 

conform to the Commission’s 

expectation for System Operating Limits 

as well as procedures within the energy 

industry. 

55. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: 

(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. 

56. For submitting comments 

concerning the collection(s) of 

information and the associated burden 

estimate(s), please send your comments 

to the Commission and to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk 

Officer for the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 

395–4638, fax: (202) 395–7285]. For 

security reasons, comments to OMB 

should be submitted by e-mail to: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Comments submitted to OMB should 

include Docket Number RM09–14 and 

OMB Control Number 1902–0246. 

IV. Environmental Analysis 

57. 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.49 The Commission has 

categorically excluded certain actions 

from this requirement as not having a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Included in the exclusion 

are rules that are clarifying, corrective, 

or procedural or that do not 

substantially change the effect of the 

regulations being amended.50 The 

actions proposed here fall within this 

categorical exclusion in the 

Commission’s regulations. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

58. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 51 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81165 

52 13 CFR 121.101 

53 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n. 1. 

business.52 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.53 The RFA 

is not implicated by this proposed rule 

because the modification discussed 

herein will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Moreover, the 

proposed Reliability Standards reflect a 

continuation of existing requirements 

for these reliability entities. 

Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required. 

VI. Comment Procedures 

59. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments on the 

matters and issues proposed in this 

notice to be adopted, including any 

related matters or alternative proposals 

that commenters may wish to discuss. 

Comments are due February 25, 2011. 

Comments must refer to Docket No. 

RM09–14–000, and must include the 

commenter’s name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their 

address in their comments. 

60. The Commission encourages 

comments to be filed electronically via 

the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The 

Commission accepts most standard 

word processing formats. Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format. 

Commenters filing electronically do not 

need to make a paper filing. 

61. Commenters unable to file 

comments electronically must mail or 

hand deliver an original copy of their 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

62. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

on this proposal are not required to 

serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

VII. Document Availability 

63. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http:// 

www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 

64. 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. 

65. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’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. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40 

Electric power, Electric utilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32357 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Part 75 

RIN 1219–AB75 

Examinations of Work Areas in 

Underground Coal Mines for Violations 

of Mandatory Health or Safety 

Standards 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of close of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) is proposing to 

revise its requirements for preshift, 

supplemental, on-shift, and weekly 

examinations of underground coal 

mines. The proposed rule would require 

operators to identify violations of 

mandatory health or safety standards. 

The proposal would also require that 

the mine operator record and correct 

violations and review with mine 

examiners (e.g., the mine foreman, 

assistant mine foreman, or other 

certified persons) on a quarterly basis all 

citations and orders issued in areas 

where preshift, supplemental, on-shift, 

and weekly examinations are required. 

The proposal would assure that 

underground coal mine operators find 

and fix violations of mandatory health 

or safety standards, thereby improving 

health and safety for miners. 

DATES: MSHA must receive comments 

by midnight Eastern Standard Time on 

February 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: All submissions must 

reference MSHA and RIN 1219–AB75. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

(1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Electronic Mail: zzMSHAComments@dol.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 1219– 

AB75’’ in the subject line of the message. 

(3) Facsimile: (202) 693–9441. Include 

‘‘RIN 1219–AB75’’ in the subject line of 

the message. 

(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939. 

(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 

2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939. 

Sign in at the receptionist’s desk on the 

21st floor. 

Information Collection Requirements: 

Comments concerning the information 

collection requirements of this proposed 

rule must be clearly identified with 

‘‘RIN 1219–AB75’’ and sent to both the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and MSHA. Comments to OMB 

may be sent by mail addressed to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, New Executive Office Building, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA. 

Comments to MSHA may be transmitted 

by any of the methods listed above in 

this section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

MSHA, at silvey.patricia@dol.gov (email), (202) 693–9440 (voice), or (202) 

693–9441 (facsimile). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

outline of this proposal is as follows: 

I. Introduction 

A. Availability of Information 

B. Statutory and Regulatory History 

II. Background Information 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. Section 75.360 Preshift Examination at 

Fixed Intervals 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1