This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

26057 

Vol. 75, No. 90 

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 

1 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the 

Calculation of Available Transfer Capability, 

Capacity Benefit Margins, Transmission Reliability 

Margins, Total Transfer Capability, and Existing 

Transmission Commitments and Mandatory 

Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, 

Order No. 729, 129 FERC ¶ 61,155 (2009). 

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 (DC Cir. 2009). 

3 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5) (2006). 

4Order No. 729, 129 FERC ¶ 61,155 at P 95. 

5 Id. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM08–19–002; Order No. 729– 

A] 

Mandatory Reliability Standards for the 

Calculation of Available Transfer 

Capability, Capacity Benefit Margins, 

Transmission Reliability Margins, Total 

Transfer Capability, and Existing 

Transmission Commitments and 

Mandatory Reliability Standards for the 

Bulk-Power System 

Issued May 5, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Order on clarification. 

SUMMARY: In this order, the Commission 

grants several requests for clarification 

of Order No. 729, which approved and 

directed modification of six Modeling, 

Data, and Analysis Reliability Standards 

submitted to the Commission for 

approval by the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation, the 

Commission-certified Electric 

Reliability Organization for the United 

States. As discussed below, the 

Commission clarifies the 

implementation timeline for these 

Reliability Standards as well as certain 

directed modifications. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will 

become effective June 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan First (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8529. 

Cory Lankford (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–6711. 

Christopher Young (Technical 

Information), Office of Electric 

Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, 

Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, 

and John R. Norris. 

Order No. 729–A 

Order on Clarification 

(Issued May 5, 2010) 

1. In this order, the Commission 

grants several requests for clarification 

of Order No. 729,1 which approved and 

directed modification of six Modeling, 

Data, and Analysis (MOD) Reliability 

Standards submitted to the Commission 

for approval by the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), 

the Commission-certified Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO) for the 

United States.2 As discussed below, the 

Commission clarifies the 

implementation timeline for these 

Reliability Standards as well as certain 

directed modifications. 

I. Background 

2. On November 24, 2009, the 

Commission issued a Final Rule in this 

proceeding that approved the six MOD 

Reliability Standards submitted to the 

Commission by the ERO. The approved 

Reliability Standards pertain to 

methodologies for the consistent and 

transparent calculation of available 

transfer capability or available flowgate 

capability. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) 

of the FPA 3 and section 39.5(f) of our 

regulations, the Commission directed 

the ERO to develop certain 

modifications to the MOD Reliability 

Standards. The Commission also 

directed NERC to retire the existing 

MOD Reliability Standards replaced by 

the versions approved in the Final Rule 

once the new versions became effective. 

3. On December 23, 2009, American 

Public Power Association (APPA) and 

Transmission Access Policy Study 

Group (TAPS), Duke Energy Carolinas, 

LLC (Duke), Edison Electric Institute 

(EEI), ISO New England (ISO–NE), and 

NERC filed timely requests for 

clarification. 

II. Discussion 

A. Implementation Schedule 

4. In the Final Rule, the Commission 

directed that the Reliability Standards 

become effective according to the 

schedule proposed by the ERO.4 Thus, 

the Commission stated that the MOD 

Reliability Standards shall become 

effective on the first calendar quarter 

that is twelve months beyond the date 

that the Reliability Standards are 

approved by all applicable regulatory 

authorities. The Commission found that 

this implementation schedule struck a 

reasonable balance between the need for 

timely reform and the needs of 

transmission service providers and 

transmission operators to make 

adjustments to their calculations of 

available transfer capability, capacity 

benefit margin and transfer reserve 

margin. In response to comments on its 

notice of proposed rulemaking, the 

Commission clarified that, under this 

plan, the Reliability Standards shall 

become effective on the first day of the 

first quarter occurring 365 days after 

approval by all applicable regulatory 

authorities. Approval by the 

Commission would be effective 60 days 

after the date of publication of the Final 

Rule in the Federal Register.5

Requests for Clarification 

5. Several petitioners requested 

clarification of the implementation 

schedule. If the Commission intended 

approval of the MOD Reliability 

Standards to be effective upon their 

approval of all regulatory authorities, 

including the applicable Canadian 

provinces, APPA and TAPS, along with 

ISO–NE, ask the Commission to clarify 

a process to keep the Commission and 

industry informed on the status of the 

required regulatory approval process. By 

contrast, EEI asks the Commission to 

clarify that the MOD Reliability 

Standards will become effective in the 

United States no earlier than the first 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
26058 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

6Order No. 729, 129 FERC ¶ 61,155 at P 106. 

7 Id. 

8See NERC Glossary, available at: http:// 

www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/ 

Glossary_2009April20.pdf. 

9Reliability Standard MOD–001–1, Requirement 

R3.1. 

day of the first quarter occurring 365 

days after the Commission approves the 

MOD Reliability Standards. 

6. NERC also requests clarification 

and provides some insight into its 

proposed implementation schedule. 

NERC explains that the term ‘‘all 

applicable regulatory authorities,’’ as it 

is used in the MOD Reliability 

Standards, includes the Commission 

and the relevant regulatory authorities 

in the Canadian provinces. NERC states 

that, when it developed the 

implementation schedule, all 

participants anticipated that the 

processes for approving the MOD 

Reliability Standards in all jurisdictions 

would result in approvals that occurred 

at roughly the same time. However, 

according to NERC, the processes for 

approval of Reliability Standards are in 

various stages of development in 

various jurisdictions. Accordingly, 

NERC requests that the Commission 

clarify that the MOD Reliability 

Standards shall become effective within 

the United States no earlier than the 

first day of the first quarter occurring 

365 days after the publication of Order 

No. 729 in the Federal Register. 

Commission Determination 

7. The Commission agrees that, 

without further clarification about 

regulatory approvals in the Canadian 

provinces, the approved 

implementation schedule is not 

determinative as to the effective date of 

the MOD Reliability Standards within 

the United States. Without a clear 

process for informing entities of the 

approval by all appropriate regulatory 

authorities, the implementation 

schedule presents some compliance 

risks. NERC has indicated that it would 

support implementation of the MOD 

Reliability Standards within the United 

States as of the first day of the first 

quarter occurring 365 days after the 

publication of Order No. 729 in the 

Federal Register. The Commission 

agrees that this implementation 

schedule is appropriate. Accordingly, 

the Commission clarifies that the MOD 

Reliability Standards shall become 

effective within the United States as of 

the first day of the first quarter 

occurring 365 days after the publication 

of Order No. 729 in the Federal 

Register, i.e., January 1, 2011. 

8. Compliance with these MOD 

Reliability Standards requires an 

exchange of information and data 

among neighboring transmission service 

providers. In some instances, for 

example, a transmission service 

provider within the United States may 

need to exchange information and data 

with a neighboring transmission service 

provider located in a jurisdiction where 

the Reliability Standard is not yet 

enforceable. In this situation, the 

transmission service provider within the 

United States shall share information 

with the transmission service provider 

located in another jurisdiction pursuant 

to the requirements of these MOD 

Reliability Standards. Nevertheless, the 

transmission service providers and 

transmission operators within the 

continental United States who must rely 

on information and data from utilities 

located in another country to comply 

with these Reliability Standards shall 

not be penalized solely for the failure of 

a utility located in another jurisdiction 

to provide such information and data, 

until such time that the MOD Reliability 

Standards become mandatory in that 

foreign jurisdiction. 

9. So that the Commission is informed 

about international approval of these 

MOD Reliability Standards, we direct 

the ERO to file notices with the 

Commission when any other applicable 

regulatory authority approves any or all 

of the MOD Reliability Standards 

approved by the Commission in Order 

No. 729. The ERO also must post notice 

of such approval on its Web site. 

B. Audit Scope 

10. In the Final Rule, the Commission 

directed the ERO to conduct an audit to 

measure compliance with the MOD 

Reliability Standards. In response to 

comments on its notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the Commission clarified 

that these audits are not intended to 

address the competitive effects of these 

MOD Reliability Standards.6 The 

Commission further stated that the 

audits should review each component of 

available transfer or flowgate capability, 

including the transmission service 

provider’s calculation of capacity 

benefit margin and transmission 

reliability margin, for transparency and 

verifiability to ensure compliance with 

the MOD Reliability Standards.7 The 

Commission explained that such an 

audit is consistent with Requirement 

R3.1 of Reliability Standard MOD–001– 

1, which requires transmission service 

providers to include in their available 

transfer capability implementation 

documents information describing how 

the selected methodology (or 

methodologies) has been implemented. 

Under Requirement R3.1, transmission 

service providers are to provide enough 

detail for the Commission and others to 

validate the results of the calculation 

given the same information used by the 

transmission service provider. 

Request for Clarification 

11. Duke contends that, although 

Requirement R3.1 of MOD–001–1 may 

be broad enough to permit the ERO to 

audit capacity benefit margin and 

transfer reliability margin calculation to 

determine if they can be validated, 

Reliability Standards MOD–004–1 and 

MOD–008–1 are not the source for such 

authority. Accordingly, Duke asks the 

Commission to clarify that the audits of 

MOD–004–1 and MOD–008–1 are to be 

limited to compliance with the explicit 

requirements of those Reliability 

Standards. 

Commission Determination 

12. Reliability Standard MOD–001–1 

establishes foundational requirements 

that oblige entities to select a 

methodology for calculating available 

transfer or flowgate capability and then 

make the appropriate calculations. 

Reliability Standards MOD–004–1 and 

MOD–008–1 establish the 

methodologies for calculating capacity 

benefit margin and transmission 

reliability margin, respectively. The 

NERC Glossary of Terms Used in 

Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) 

defines available transfer capability as 

‘‘Total Transfer Capability less Exiting 

Transmission Commitments (including 

retail customer service), less a Capacity 

Benefit Margin, less a Transmission 

Reliability Margin, plus Postbacks, plus 

counterflows.’’ 8 Thus, both capacity 

benefit margin and transmission 

reliability margin are integral 

components of any available transfer or 

flowgate calculation. 

13. Under Requirement R3.1 of MOD– 

001–1, a transmission service provider 

must include in its implementation 

documentation: 

‘‘[i]nformation describing how the selected 

methodology (or methodologies) has been 

implemented, in such detail that, given the 

same information used by the Transmission 

Service Provider, the results of the [available 

transfer capability] or [available flowgate 

capability] calculations can be validated.9

Because capacity benefit margin and 

transfer reliability margin are integral 

components of any available transfer or 

flowgate capability calculation, we 

believe that, for an entity to validate the 

results of an available transfer or 

flowgate capability calculation, the 

calculations of capacity benefit margin 

and transfer reliability margin must also 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26059 

10Order No. 729, 129 FERC ¶ 61,155 at P 162. 

11 Id. 

12 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 

4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, at P 1210 

(2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC 

¶ 61,053 (2007). 

13Preventing Undue Discrimination and 

Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 

72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,241, at P 290 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 

890–A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 16, 2008), FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 

890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 890–C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2009). 

14Order No. 890–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 

at P 99. 

15Order No. 729, 129 FERC ¶ 61,155 at P 171 

(citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 

at P 119). 

be detailed in the implementation 

document with such detail that they can 

be validated. Thus, the Commission 

clarifies that the calculations of capacity 

benefit margin and transfer reliability 

margin, performed under MOD–004–1 

and MOD–008–1 respectively, are 

properly audited under Requirement 

R3.1 of MOD–001–1. 

C. Benchmarking 

14. In the Final Rule, the Commission 

directed the ERO to develop 

benchmarking and updating 

requirements for the MOD Reliability 

Standards to measure modeled available 

transfer and flowgate capability values 

against actual values.10 The 

Commission stated that such 

requirements should specify the 

frequency for benchmarking and 

updating the available transfer and 

flowgate capability values and should 

require transmission service providers 

to update their models after any 

incident that substantially alters system 

conditions, such as generation 

outages.11

Request for Clarification 

15. Duke states that, in Order No. 693, 

the Commission directed the ERO to 

modify Reliability Standard MOD–014– 

0 to include a requirement for validating 

models against actual system results. 

Duke states that the Commission 

reinforced this requirement in Order No. 

890–A, holding that the models used by 

the transmission provider to calculate 

available transfer capability, and not 

actual available transfer capability 

values, must be benchmarked. Duke 

requests that the Commission clarify 

that its directive in Order No. 729 to 

develop benchmarking and updating 

requirements is the same as the 

directives in Order Nos. 693 and 890– 

A, and is not intended to require a 

different form of benchmarking. 

Commission Determination 

16. The Commission clarifies that the 

directive in Order No. 729 to develop 

benchmarking and updating 

requirements is related to the directives 

in Order Nos. 693, 890, and 890–A. In 

Order No. 693, the Commission directed 

modification of Reliability Standard 

MOD–014–0 to include a requirement 

that the models developed under the 

Reliability Standard be validated against 

actual system responses and that the 

maximum discrepancy between the 

model results and the actual system 

response should be specified in the 

Reliability Standard.12 Similarly, in 

Order No. 890, the Commission directed 

public utilities, working through NERC, 

to modify certain MOD Reliability 

Standards to incorporate requirements 

for the periodic review and modification 

of certain models.13 In Order No. 890– 

A, the Commission clarified this 

directive by stating that the models used 

by the transmission provider to 

calculate available transfer capability, 

and not actual available transfer 

capability values, must be 

benchmarked.14

17. The Commission remains 

concerned about the accuracy of the 

models used to calculate available 

transfer capability. Accordingly, in 

Order No. 729, the Commission directed 

the ERO to develop benchmarking and 

updating requirements to measure the 

results of the available transfer and 

flowgate calculations against actual 

values. The Commission’s directive to 

develop benchmarking and updating 

requirements stems from the same 

concerns raised in Order Nos. 693, 890, 

and 890–A. The benchmarking and 

updating requirements directed in Order 

No. 729 are not intended to require a 

different form of benchmarking than 

required under those prior orders. 

D. Treatment of Network Resource 

Designations 

18. In the Final Rule, the Commission 

found that Reliability Standards MOD– 

028–1 and MOD–029–1 failed to address 

the directive in Order No. 693 to specify 

how transmission service providers 

should determine which generators 

should be modeled in service when 

calculating available transfer 

capability.15 Specifically, with regard to 

MOD–028–1, the Commission noted 

that Requirement R3.1.3, which 

addresses designated network resources, 

governs the calculation of total transfer 

capability, not existing transmission 

commitments. The Commission stated 

that the only information provided as to 

the effect of designating and 

undesignating a network resource on 

existing transmission commitments is in 

Requirement R8, which merely states 

that ‘‘the firm capacity set aside for 

Network Integration Transmission 

Service’’ will be included. Accordingly, 

the Commission directed the ERO, 

pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA 

and section 39.5(f) of its regulations, to 

develop a modification to MOD–028–1 

and MOD–029–1 to specify that base 

generation schedules used in the 

calculation available transfer capability 

will reflect the modeling of all 

designated network resources and other 

resources that are committed to or have 

the legal obligation to run, as they are 

expected to run, and to address the 

effect on available transfer capability of 

designating and undesignating a 

network resource. 

Request for Clarification 

19. Duke contends that the 

Commission’s directive requiring 

additional specificity regarding the 

effect of designating and undesignating 

a network resource on existing 

transmission commitments is 

inappropriately focused on 

modifications to Requirement R8 of 

MOD–028–1. Duke states that which 

requirements need to be amended to 

include the desired additional 

specificity will be dependent on which 

components of available transfer 

capability are impacted by the base 

model and network resource 

designations and undesignations. 

According to Duke, the Commission 

erred in stating that existing 

transmission capacity includes firm 

capacity set aside for network 

integration transmission service. 

According to Duke, within MOD–028–1, 

the relationship between capacity set 

aside for network integration 

transmission service and existing 

transmission commitment is a narrower 

concept than the Commission presents 

in Order No. 729. Accordingly, Duke 

recommends that the Commission 

should not expect Requirement R8 of 

MOD–028–1 to be modified as a result 

of an effort to include the additional 

specificity and requests that the 

Commission clarify that the added 

specificity should be included in 

whichever Requirement(s) are relevant 

and appropriate. 

Commission Determination 

20. In the Final Rule, the Commission 

did not intend to direct the ERO to 

necessarily develop a modification to 

Requirement R8 of MOD–028–1. The 

ERO may develop a modification to 

another appropriate requirement of 

MOD–028–1 to capture the additional 

specificity required regarding the effect 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
26060 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

16See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,242 at P 1041. 

17Order No. 729, 129 FERC ¶ 61,155 at P 179. 

18 Id. 

19Order No. 729, 129 FERC ¶ 61,155 at P 222. 

20 Id. 

21Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 1080; see also Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,241 at P 259; Order No. 890–A, FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,261 at P 82. 

22 5 CFR 1320. 

of designating and undesignating a 

network resource on existing 

transmission commitments or, as Duke 

notes, any other relevant component of 

available transmission capacity. 

Nevertheless, any modification 

developed to fulfill this requirement 

must specify how transmission 

providers should model base generation 

dispatch in a consistent manner that 

includes all designated network 

resources and other resources that are 

committed to or have the legal 

obligation to run, as they are expected 

to run.16

E. Updates To Dispatch Model 

Following Material Changes 

21. In the Final Rule, the Commission 

determined that, to be useful, hourly, 

daily, and monthly available transfer 

and flowgate capability values must be 

calculated and posted in advance of the 

relevant time periods.17 The 

Commission found that Requirement R8 

of MOD–001–1 and Requirement R10 of 

MOD–030–2 require that such posting 

will occur far enough in advance to 

meet this need. Nevertheless, in light of 

concerns raised by commenters, the 

Commission directed the ERO to 

develop modifications to MOD–001–1 

and MOD–030–2 to clarify that material 

changes in system conditions will 

trigger an update whenever practical.18

Request for Clarification 

22. Duke states that it agrees that 

material changes should trigger an 

update whenever practical, but 

admonishes that such a requirement is 

too vague to be enforceable, let alone 

auditable, by the ERO due to differing 

interpretations of the phrases ‘‘material 

changes’’ and ‘‘whenever practical.’’ 

Accordingly, Duke requests that the 

Commission provide further clarity to 

the ERO as to the desired modifications. 

Commission Determination 

23. The Commission agrees that it 

could be difficult in some instances to 

enforce a requirement that hinges upon 

such phrases as ‘‘material changes’’ and 

‘‘whenever practical.’’ Nevertheless, we 

believe that such modifications would 

be useful to ensure timely updates of 

available transfer or flowgate capability 

values. If the ERO is unable to modify 

the requirements of MOD–001–1 and 

MOD–030–2 to incorporate such 

language in a manner that sets clear 

criteria or measures of whether an entity 

is in compliance with the relevant 

Reliability Standard or cannot otherwise 

identify specific changes in system 

conditions that require an update, the 

ERO must, at a minimum, include this 

language in its measures of compliance 

associated with those Reliability 

Standards. 

F. Managing the Use of Capacity Benefit 

Margins 

24. In the Final Rule, the Commission 

determined that ISOs, RTOs, and other 

entities with a wide view of system 

reliability needs should be able to 

provide input into determining the total 

amount of capacity benefit margin 

required to preserve the reliability of the 

system.19 The Commission pointed out, 

though, that Requirements R1.3 and R7 

of MOD–004–1 already make clear that 

determination of need for generation 

capability import requirement made by 

a load-serving entity or resource planner 

are not final. The Commission added 

that the third bullet of both 

Requirements R5 and R6 explicitly list 

reserve margin or resource adequacy 

requirements established by RTOs and 

ISOs among the factors to be considered 

in establishing capacity benefit margin 

values for available transfer capability 

paths or flowgates used in available 

transfer or flowgate capability 

calculations. To ensure that the 

Reliability Standard clearly identifies 

how the transmission service provider 

will manage situations where the 

requested use of capacity benefit margin 

exceeds the capacity benefit margin 

available, the Commission directed the 

ERO to develop a modification to MOD– 

004–1 to clarify the term ‘‘manage’’ in 

Requirement R1.3.20

Request for Clarification 

25. Duke states that it understands the 

Commission’s directive to require that 

the manner in which such a situation is 

managed should be transparent to all 

users in the relevant capacity benefit 

margin implementation document. 

Accordingly, Duke asks the Commission 

to clarify that it intended to direct the 

ERO to modify the Reliability Standard 

to require that transmission service 

providers explain in their capacity 

benefit margin implementation 

document their specific method for 

managing a situation where the 

requested use of capacity benefit margin 

exceeds the capacity benefit margin 

available, recognizing that each 

transmission service provider may have 

its own method. 

Commission Determination 

26. In Order Nos. 890 and 693, the 

Commission emphasized that each loadserving entity has the right to request 

that capacity benefit margin be set aside, 

and to use transmission capacity set 

aside for that purpose, to meet its 

verifiable generation reliability criteria 

requirement.21 The Commission is 

concerned that Reliability Standard 

MOD–004–1 could allow a transmission 

service provider to calculate, allocate, 

and use capacity benefit margin in a 

way that impairs the reliable operation 

of the Bulk-Power System. Under the 

Reliability Standard, the transmission 

service provider is to ‘‘reflect 

consideration’’ of studies provided by 

load-serving entities and resource 

planners demonstrating a need for 

capacity benefit margin and ‘‘manage’’ 

situations where the requested use of 

capacity benefit margin exceeds the 

capacity benefit margin available. 

Reliability Standard MOD–004–1 places 

no bounds on this ‘‘consideration’’ and 

‘‘management’’ and, for example, would 

permit a transmission service provider 

to make decisions regarding the use of 

capacity benefit margin based solely on 

economic considerations 

notwithstanding a demonstration of 

need for capacity benefit margin by a 

load-serving entity or resource planner. 

27. These concerns would be 

diminished if the transmission service 

provider’s capacity benefit margin 

implementation document were 

sufficiently transparent to allow others 

to validate the method of managing 

capacity benefit margin. Accordingly, 

the Commission upholds its decision to 

direct the ERO to develop a 

modification that would clarify the term 

‘‘manage’’ in Requirement R1.3. The 

Commission clarifies, however, that the 

ERO, through its Reliability Standards 

development process, should determine 

the manner in which this clarification is 

made. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

28. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) regulations require that 

OMB approve certain information 

collection requirements imposed by an 

agency.22 The revisions to the 

information collection requirements for 

transmission service providers and 

transmission operators adopted in Order 

No. 729 were approved under OMB 

Control No. 1902–0244. This order 

clarifies these requirements in order to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26061 

more clearly state the obligations 

imposed in Order No. 729, but does not 

substantively alter those requirements. 

OMB approval of this order is therefore 

unnecessary. However, the Commission 

will send a copy of this order to OMB 

for informational purposes only. 

IV. 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. 

V. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

32. Clarifications adopted in this 

Final Rule will become effective June 

10, 2010. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40 

By the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11089 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[TD 9350] 

RIN 1545–BE24 

AJCA Modifications To the Section 

6011 Regulations; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to final regulations (TD 9350) 

which were published in the Federal 

Register on Friday, August 3, 2007 (72 

FR 43146) that modify the rules relating 

to the disclosure of reportable 

transactions under section 6011. 

DATES: This correction is effective on 

May 11, 2010, and is applicable on 

August 3, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles D. Wien or Michael H. Beker, 

(202) 622–3070 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The final regulations (TD 9350) that 

are the subject of this document are 

under section 6011 of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final regulations 

(TD 9350) contain an error that may 

prove to be misleading and is in need 

of clarification. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Correction of Publication 

■ Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendment: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 1.6011–4 is amended 

by revising the fifth sentence of 

paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 1.6011–4 Requirement of statement 

disclosing participation in certain 

transactions by taxpayers. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * In the case of a taxpayer that 

is a partnership, an S corporation, or a 

trust, the disclosure statement for a 

reportable transaction must be attached 

to the partnership, S corporation, or 

trust’s tax return for each taxable year in 

which the partnership, S corporation, or 

trust participates in the transaction 

under the rules of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of 

this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2010–11078 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[TD 9350] 

RIN 1545–BE24 

AJCA Modifications To the Section 

6011 Regulations; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to final regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to final regulations (TD 9350) 

which were published in the Federal 

Register on Friday, August 3, 2007 (72 

FR 43146) that modify the rules relating 

to the disclosure of reportable 

transactions under section 6011. 

DATES: This correction is effective on 

May 11, 2010, and is applicable on 

August 3, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles D. Wien or Michael H. Beker, 

(202) 622–3070 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The final regulations (TD 9350) that 

are the subject of this document are 

under section 6011 of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final regulations 

(TD 9350) contain an error that may 

prove to be misleading and is in need 

of clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the 

final regulations (TD 9350) which were 

the subject of FR Doc. 07–3786, is 

corrected as follows: 

On page 43146, column 2, in the 

preamble, under the caption heading 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES