66702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1 16 U.S.C. 824o. 

2The Commission certified NERC as the ERO in 

July 2006. North American Electric Reliability 

Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 (ERO Certification Order), 

order on reh’g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 

(2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 

1342 (DC Cir. 2009). 

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

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

FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Required Actions 

(g) Within 60 days after the effective date 

of this AD, do a complete inspection of the 

flap system following the Inspection 

Instructions section of Sierra Industries, Ltd. 

Service Bulletin SI09–82 Series–1, Rev. IR, 

dated September 8, 2010. 

(h) Before further flight after the inspection 

required in paragraph (g) of this AD where 

any damage to the flap bellcrank or bellcrank 

mounting structure is found, repair the 

damage and modify the flap control system 

following the Accomplishment Instructions 

of Sierra Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin 

SI09–82 Series–1, Rev. IR, dated September 

8, 2010. 

(i) Within 180 days after the effective date 

of this AD where damage to the flap 

bellcrank or bellcrank mounting structure is 

not found during the inspection required in 

paragraph (g) of the AD, modify the flap 

control system following the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Sierra 

Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin SI09–82 

Series–1, Rev. IR, dated September 8, 2010. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your Principal Maintenance Inspector 

or Principal Avionics Inspector, as 

appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, 

your local Flight Standards District Office. 

Related Information 

(k) For more information about this AD, 

contact Werner Koch, Aerospace Engineer, 

Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 

FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, 

Texas 76137; phone: (817) 222–5133; fax: 

(817) 222–5960; e-mail: 

werner.g.koch@faa.gov. 

(l) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Sierra Industries, Ltd., 122 

Howard Langford Drive, Uvalde, Texas 

78801; telephone: 888–835–9377; e-mail: 

info@sijet.com; Internet: http:// 

www.sijet.com. You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 816–329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 25, 2010. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27460 Filed 10–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM09–19–000] 

Western Electric Coordinating Council; 

Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled 

Flow Relief Regional Reliability 

Standard 

October 21, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

proposes to approve regional Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 (Qualified 

Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief) 

submitted to the Commission for 

approval by the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation. While we 

propose to approve the regional 

Reliability Standard, as discussed in 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

IRO–006–WECC–1 raises some concerns 

about which the Commission requests 

additional information. Depending upon 

the responses received, in the Final Rule 

the Commission may, as a separate 

action under section 215(d)(5) of the 

FPA, direct the Western Electricity 

Coordinating Council to develop 

modifications to the regional Reliability 

Standard to address the issues 

identified. 

DATES: Comments are due December 28, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by Docket 

No. RM09–19–000, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.ferc.gov. Documents created 

electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native 

applications or print-to-PDF format and 

not in a scanned format. 

• 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. 

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 regional Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 (Qualified 

Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief) 

submitted to the Commission for 

approval by the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation (NERC), the 

Commission-certified Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO). While 

we propose to approve the regional 

Reliability Standard, as discussed in 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

IRO–006–WECC–1 raises some concerns 

about which the Commission requests 

additional information. Depending upon 

the responses received, the Commission 

may, in the Final Rule, direct the 

Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council (WECC) to develop 

modifications to the regional Reliability 

Standard to address the issues 

identified. 

I. Background 

A. Section 215 of the FPA and NERC 

Reliability Standard IRO–006 

2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a 

Commission-certified ERO to develop 

mandatory and enforceable Reliability 

Standards, which are subject to 

Commission review and approval.2

Approved Reliability Standards are 

enforced by the ERO, subject to 

Commission oversight, or by the 

Commission independently. 

3. On March 16, 2007, the 

Commission issued Order No. 693 

approving 83 Reliability Standards 

proposed by NERC, including 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–3, titled 

‘‘Reliability Coordination— 

Transmission Loading Relief.’’ 3 In 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66703 

4 Modification of Interchange and Transmission 

Loading Relief Reliability Standards; and Electric 

Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific 

Requirements of Four Reliability Standards, Order 

No. 713–A, 126 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2009). 

5North American Electric Reliability Corp., 

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

(unpublished letter order). Note that Reliability 

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

the ‘‘WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction 

Procedure,’’ which is Attachment 1 to the Mitigation 

Plan, the term we use herein. 

6See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 

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

¶ 61,260 (2007) (Delegation Agreement Order). 

7 Id. P 469–470. 

8North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,260 (June 8, 2007 Order). 

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

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

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

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

70–71. 

11North American Electric Reliability Corp., June 

17, 2009 Petition for Approval of Proposed Western 

Electricity Coordinating Council Regional 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 (NERC 

Petition). 

addition, the Commission directed the 

ERO to develop modifications to IRO– 

006–3 and other approved Reliability 

Standards to address specific issues 

identified by the Commission, pursuant 

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

4. NERC Reliability Standard IRO– 

006–3 establishes a Transmission 

Loading Relief (TLR) process for use in 

the Eastern Interconnection to alleviate 

loadings on the system by curtailing or 

changing transactions based on their 

priorities and according to different 

levels of TLR procedures. Requirement 

R2.2 provides that ‘‘the equivalent 

Interconnection-wide transmission 

loading relief procedure for use in the 

Western Interconnection is the WECC 

Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan.’’ 

This document provides detailed 

instructions for addressing unscheduled 

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

the topography and configuration of the 

Bulk-Power System in the Western 

Interconnection. The Unscheduled Flow 

Mitigation Plan identifies nine ‘‘steps’’ to 

address unscheduled flows. In the first 

three steps, the Mitigation Plan relies on 

phase angle regulators, series capacitors, 

and back-to-back DC lines to mitigate 

contingencies without curtailing 

transactions. Steps four and above 

involve curtailment of transactions. 

5. On March 19, 2009, the 

Commission approved IRO–006–4, 

which modified the prior version of the 

Reliability Standard and addressed the 

Commission’s directives from Order No. 

693.4 The Commission subsequently 

accepted an erratum to that Reliability 

Standard that corrected the reference in 

Requirement R1.2 to the Unscheduled 

Flow Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan).5

B. WECC Delegation Agreement and 

WECC Regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–STD–006–0 

6. On April 19, 2007, the Commission 

approved delegation agreements 

between NERC and each of the eight 

Regional Entities, including WECC.6

Pursuant to such agreements, the ERO 

delegated responsibility to the Regional 

Entities to enforce the mandatory, 

Commission-approved Reliability 

Standards. In addition, the Commission 

approved, as part of each delegation 

agreement, a Regional Entity process for 

developing regional Reliability 

Standards. In the Delegation Agreement 

Order, the Commission accepted WECC 

as a Regional Entity organized on an 

Interconnection-wide basis and 

accepted WECC’s Standards 

Development Manual, which sets forth 

the process for development of WECC’s 

Reliability Standards.7

7. On June 8, 2007, the Commission 

approved eight WECC regional 

Reliability Standards that apply in the 

Western Interconnection, including 

IRO–STD–006–0.8 The regional 

Reliability Standard applies to 

transmission operators, load-serving 

entities and balancing authorities within 

the Western Interconnection. Currently 

effective IRO–STD–006–0 addresses the 

mitigation of transmission overloads 

due to unscheduled line flow on 

specified paths. Specifically, 

Requirement R1 of IRO–STD–006–0 

states that: 

WECC’s Unscheduled Flow Mitigation 

Plan (Plan) * * * specifies that members 

shall comply with requests from (Qualified) 

Transfer Path Operators to take actions that 

will reduce unscheduled flow on the 

Qualified Path in accordance with the table 

entitled ‘‘WECC Unscheduled Flow 

Procedure Summary of Curtailment Actions,’’ 

which is located in Attachment 1 of the 

Plan.9

The regional Reliability Standard then 

provides excerpts from the plan that 

describe actions entities must take to 

address unscheduled flow. 

8. The June 8, 2007 Order directed 

WECC to develop certain modifications 

to the eight WECC Reliability Standards 

to address issues identified by the 

Commission. With respect to IRO–STD– 

006–0, the Commission directed WECC 

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

Reliability Standard. The Commission 

also directed WECC to address concerns 

raised by a commenter regarding 

WECC’s inclusion of load-serving 

entities, which may be unable to meet 

the Reliability Standard’s requirements, 

in the applicability section of the 

Reliability Standard.10 The Commission 

directed WECC to remove a Sanctions 

Table (identifying a maximum penalty 

of $10,000 per violation) that is 

inconsistent with the NERC Sanctions 

Guidelines. The Commission also 

directed WECC to address NERC’s 

concerns regarding formatting, use of 

standard terms, and the need for greater 

specificity in the actions that a 

responsible entity must take. 

II. Petition for Proposed Regional 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 

A. Proposed Regional Reliability 

Standard 

9. In a June 17, 2009 filing, NERC 

requests Commission approval of 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–006–WECC–1, which was 

developed in response to the 

Commission’s directives in the June 8, 

2007 Order, to replace the currently 

effective regional Standard.11 NERC 

states that the purpose of IRO–006– 

WECC–1 is to mitigate transmission 

overloads due to unscheduled flow on 

Qualified Transfer Paths. Under the 

Reliability Standard, reliability 

coordinators are responsible for 

initiating schedule curtailments and 

balancing authorities are responsible for 

implementing the curtailments. 

Specifically, proposed regional 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 

contains the following two 

Requirements: 

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

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

1) from the Transmission Operator of a 

Qualified Transfer Path, the Reliability 

Coordinator shall approve (actively or 

passively) or deny that request within five 

minutes. 

R.2. The Balancing Authorities shall 

approve curtailment requests to the 

schedules as submitted, implement 

alternative actions, or a combination there of 

that collectively meets the Relief 

Requirement. 

An attachment to IRO–006–WECC–1 

summarizes the nine steps and related 

actions to address unscheduled flows. 

10. NERC states that the revised 

regional Reliability Standard addresses 

the Commission’s prior concerns by 

removing load-serving entities as an 

applicable entity, no longer referring to 

receivers, and addressing formatting 

changes required by NERC and the 

Commission’s June 8, 2007 Order. 

Further, NERC states the proposed 

Reliability Standard is justified on the 

basis that the regional Reliability 

Standard’s requirements are more 

stringent than those contained in the 

associated NERC Reliability Standard 

IRO–006–4. NERC explains that the 

NERC Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

66704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

12 Id 26–27. 

13 Id. at 30. 

14NERC’s petition for approval of regional 

Reliability Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 is currently 

pending before the Commission in Docket No. 

RM09–14–000. 

15The document is titled, ‘‘Interaction between 

TOP–007–WECC–1 and IRO–006–WECC–1.’’ 

16Exhibit C to NERC Petition, Interaction between 

TOP–007–WECC–1 and IRO–006–WECC–1 at 1. 

Requirement WR1 of the currently applicable 

regional Reliability Standard, TOP–STD–007–0 

provides, in part, that ‘‘Actual power flow and net 

scheduled power flow over an interconnection or 

transfer path shall be maintained within Operating 

Transfer Capability Limits.’’ The NERC Glossary 

defines Operating Transfer Capability Limit 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.’’ 

Proposed regional Reliability Standard TOP–007– 

WECC–1, Requirement R1 provides that ‘‘When the 

actual power flow exceeds an SOL 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 SOL for more than 30 minutes.’’ 

17Exhibit C to Petition, Interaction between TOP– 

007–WECC–1 and IRO–006–WECC–1 at 2. 

18 Id. at 2–3. 

19 Id. at 3. 

20 Id. at 4. 

requires a reliability coordinator 

experiencing a potential or actual 

System Operating Limit (SOL) or 

Interconnection Reliability Operating 

Limit (IROL) violation to take 

appropriate actions to relieve 

transmission loading using local or 

Interconnection-wide procedures. 

According to NERC, Requirement R1 of 

the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 goes 

beyond the NERC requirements by 

establishing a process to reduce 

schedules that prevents potential 

overloads during the next operating 

hour. In addition, the proposed 

Reliability Standard requires each 

reliability coordinator to approve or 

deny a request submitted by a Qualified 

Transfer Path transmission operator 

within five minutes. Requirement R2 of 

the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard requires each balancing 

authority to approve curtailment 

requests to the schedules as submitted, 

implement alternative actions, or a 

combination thereof, which collectively 

meet the relief requirement. 

B. Concerns Raised by NERC Regarding 

the WECC Proposal 

11. In the Petition, NERC explains 

that, when WECC submitted IRO–006– 

WECC–1 for NERC’s review, NERC was 

concerned that the proposed Standard 

no longer contains requirements that are 

more stringent than the continent-wide 

NERC Reliability Standard IRO–006–4, 

which was the main justification for 

consideration of IRO–006–WECC–1 as 

the regional Reliability Standard.12

NERC states that, at the direction of the 

NERC Board of Trustees, NERC staff met 

several times with WECC staff to discuss 

its concerns with the proposed regional 

Reliability Standard. 

1. Pre-Curtailment Actions 

12. In its Petition, NERC expressed 

several concerns. First, NERC was 

concerned that the proposed Standard 

only includes the curtailment portion of 

the Mitigation Plan. In contrast, the 

current regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–STD–006–0 references WECC’s 

Mitigation Plan, which contains 

directions in steps one through three to 

reduce flows through use of phase-angle 

regulators, series capacitors, and backto-back DC lines before transaction 

curtailment. 

13. According to the NERC Petition, 

WECC explained that the proposed 

regional Reliability Standard contains 

the curtailment portion of the Mitigation 

Plan ‘‘because the remaining items 

contain procedural requirements 

explaining ‘how,’ not ‘what.’ ’’ 13 WECC 

explained to NERC that two WECC 

regional Reliability Standards work 

together. Proposed IRO–006–WECC–1 

prevents overloads during the next hour 

by requiring applicable entities to 

reduce schedules and adjust generation 

patterns. In addition, regional 

Reliability Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 

(System Operating Limits), contains 

instructions for mitigation of an actual, 

real-time overload.14 According to 

WECC, these regional Reliability 

Standards, combined, ensure that the 

transmission operator will utilize the 

phase-angle regulators, series capacitors, 

and back-to-back DC lines before 

transaction curtailment. 

14. In addition, NERC provided 

additional supplemental information in 

Exhibit C of its Petition regarding how 

WECC envisions the implementation of 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–006–WECC–1. Exhibit C contains 

the complete development record of 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–006–WECC–1 and includes 

WECC’s undated response to NERC’s 

concerns regarding the interaction 

between TOP–007–WECC–1 and IRO– 

006–WECC–1.15

15. Specifically, NERC raised a 

concern that ‘‘IRO–006–WECC–1 

removed a requirement for the 

Transmission Operator (TOP) to request 

relief through the WECC Qualified Path 

Unscheduled Flow Relief Procedure 

when a qualified transfer path exceeded 

or was close to exceeding a System 

Operating Limit (SOL).’’ In response, 

WECC stated that ‘‘the requirements of 

another WECC regional reliability 

standard, TOP–STD–007–0 (interim 

approved Tier 1 standard), as well as the 

WECC proposed replacement regional 

reliability standard TOP–007–WECC–1, 

require the TOP to take actions to 

ensure that SOLs are not exceeded.’’ 16

16. WECC further explained that 

TOP–WECC–007–1 requires 

Transmission Operators to keep path 

flows and schedules at or below SOLs 

for 40 identified paths. WECC stated 

that ‘‘TOPs, in coordination with the 

Reliability Coordinators, may select 

from several methods’’ to reduce flows, 

and provide several examples, such as 

on path schedule curtailments, adjust 

controllable devices (e.g., phase shifters, 

series capacitors), use of the WECC 

Mitigation Plan if the path experiencing 

the loading is a qualified path, or local 

procedures, as well as other examples. 

WECC further explained that the ‘‘key 

point’’ with respect to qualified paths, 

‘‘is that it is TOP–007–WECC–1, not 

IRO–006–WECC–1, that requires the 

TOP to take actions to reduce flows to 

within SOLs.’’ 17 In situations where the 

Transmission Operator has taken action 

to reduce the flows on qualified paths, 

but the flows remain near or exceeding 

the SOL, ‘‘IRO–006–WECC–1 requires 

curtailment of Contributing Schedules 

or provision of comparable relief 

through other means, as identified in 

the Unscheduled Flow Reduction 

Procedure [a portion of the Mitigation 

Plan].’’ 18 WECC further notes that 

‘‘implementation of the [Mitigation Plan] 

is one of the options available to the 

TOP to prevent potential violations of 

TOP–007–WECC–1. If the TOP is able to 

take other actions to keep actual flows 

within SOLs, the TOP may not need or 

desire to utilize the [Mitigation Plan]. 

* * * However, if the TOP chooses the 

[Mitigation Plan] as one of the 

alternatives to manage flows, the 

requirements of IRO–006–WECC–1 

make it mandatory for entities with 

Contributing Schedules to curtail these 

schedules, upon approval by the 

[reliability coordinator], to provide the 

necessary relief.’’ 19 WECC summarizes 

the interaction between the two regional 

standards, stating that ‘‘IRO–006– 

WECC–1 provides entities with the 

necessary motivation to curtail off-path 

schedules and adjust generation to 

prevent and/or reduce qualified path 

overloads, thus facilitating compliance 

with TOP–007–WECC–1.’’ 20

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66705 

21The webSAS (Security Analysis System) is a 

proprietary Internet based application that is used 

by WECC to analyze, initiate, communicate, and 

provide compliance reports for implementation of 

the Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure. It is 

available by subscription through the vendor to 

provide notification of Unscheduled Flow Events, 

calculate and display required relief, and provide 

a rapid method of transaction curtailments. 

2. Role of Reliability Coordinator 

17. NERC’s second concern with the 

proposed regional Standard was with 

regard to the role of the reliability 

coordinator. According to the NERC 

Petition, NERC staff requested 

clarification regarding the role of the 

reliability coordinator in initiating 

curtailments. In the proposed Reliability 

Standard, IRO–006–WECC–1, the 

reliability coordinator is only obligated 

to respond to a transmission operator’s 

curtailment request. However, there is 

no mention in either the proposed 

Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 or TOP– 

007–WECC–1 that the entity with the 

wide-area view, the reliability 

coordinator, can initiate curtailment 

requests if needed for reliability. Nor do 

they indicate what recourse the 

transmission operator has if the 

reliability coordinator denies the 

request for curtailment. WECC 

confirmed that the reliability 

coordinator does not initiate 

curtailments but, rather, approves the 

transmission operator’s request for 

curtailment. Requirement R1 of 

proposed IRO–006–WECC–1 requires 

the reliability coordinator to approve or 

deny the request, which is 

accomplished using the OATI webSAS 

tool.21 Unless the reliability coordinator 

denies the request for reliability reasons, 

the webSAS tool, through 

preprogrammed algorithms, identifies 

the off-path schedules to curtail and 

submits those curtailments to the 

entities identified on the tags. WECC 

also confirmed that the reliability 

coordinator has the wide-area view and, 

when a transmission operator requests 

curtailment of off-path schedules, the 

reliability coordinator may deny the 

request for reliability reasons. In that 

situation, the transmission operator, in 

coordination with the reliability 

coordinator, would then follow one of 

the other WECC or local procedures for 

reducing path flow. 

18. NERC states that, as a result of 

WECC’s clarification, the NERC Board of 

Trustees approved proposed IRO–006– 

WECC–1 on February 10, 2009. 

III. Discussion 

19. Under section 215(d)(2) of the 

FPA, we propose to approve regional 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1, 

as just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in 

the public interest. In addition, we ask 

WECC, the ERO, and other interested 

entities to provide further clarification 

regarding several aspects of the 

proposed regional Reliability Standard. 

Depending on the responses to our 

concerns, we may determine that it is 

appropriate to direct WECC to develop 

modifications to the proposed regional 

Reliability Standard under section 

215(d)(5) of the FPA. 

20. It is the Commission’s view that 

the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard adequately addresses a 

number of the directives identified in 

the June 8, 2007 Order and represents 

improvement to the standard. For 

example, it appears that IRO–006– 

WECC–1 adequately addresses our 

concern regarding use of the term 

‘‘receiver’’ by removing the term, and 

thereby eliminating potential confusion 

that could result from the undefined 

term. The proposed regional Reliability 

Standard also provides additional 

clarity by removing load-serving entities 

from the applicability section of the 

standard. This is beneficial since, as 

noted by NERC and WECC, load-serving 

entities may be unable to meet the 

Reliability Standard’s requirements with 

regard to curtailment procedures. 

Further, unlike the currently effective 

regional Reliability Standard, IRO–006– 

WECC–1 would include reliability 

coordinators as an applicable entity and 

would address their role in curtailment 

procedures. 

21. As indicated by NERC, proposed 

IRO–006–WECC–1 appears to go beyond 

the corresponding NERC Reliability 

Standard by requiring a reliability 

coordinator to approve or deny a request 

submitted by a transmission operator 

within five minutes. 

22. The WECC Reliability Standard 

also addresses formatting concerns, 

including the use of standard terms, 

conformance with NERC’s Violation 

Severity Level and Violation Risk Factor 

matrix, and the elimination of a WECC 

sanction table (with a maximum penalty 

of $10,000) and ‘‘Excuse of Performance’’ 

section in the currently effective WECC 

standard that significantly differ from 

NERC’s Sanction Guidelines. In 

addition, IRO–006–WECC–1 ensures 

that the requirements are part of the 

regional Reliability Standard rather than 

embedded in a filing. For these reasons, 

we propose to approve the proposed 

WECC Reliability Standard. 

Commission Concerns 

23. However, in addressing the 

Commission’s directives, such as the 

removal of load-serving entities and the 

term ‘‘receivers,’’ it appears that WECC 

has raised some other concerns that 

create possible conflicts or 

inconsistencies between proposed IRO– 

006–WECC–1 and NERC’s currently 

effective IRO–006–4, as discussed 

below. In modifying the regional 

Reliability Standard, WECC has 

eliminated the reference to the 

Mitigation Plan, included in both the 

NERC standard, IRO–006–4, and the 

currently effective WECC standard. As 

mentioned above, the Mitigation Plan 

includes nine steps to address 

unscheduled flows; steps four and 

above requiring varying levels of 

curtailments of transactions. 

Requirement R1 of proposed IRO–006– 

WECC–1 provides that ‘‘[u]pon receiving 

a request of Step 4 or greater * * * from 

the Transmission Operator of a 

Qualified Transfer Path, the Reliability 

Coordinator shall approve * * * or 

deny that request within five minutes’’; 

however, steps one through three are no 

longer referenced in IRO–006–WECC–1 

or in the related regional Standard TOP– 

007–WECC–1. 

24. On the other hand, NERC 

Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 

continues to specifically reference the 

Mitigation Plan with regard to 

transmission loading relief in the 

Western Interconnection. However, the 

Mitigation Plan has not been updated to 

include the requirement that the 

reliability coordinator act on a request 

for relief within five minutes, an 

improvement contained in WECC’s 

proposed IRO–006–WECC–1. Likewise, 

the Mitigation Plan continues to 

reference and require action by 

‘‘receivers,’’ while that term is removed 

from the proposed WECC regional 

Reliability Standard, in conformance 

with the Commission’s directive in the 

June 8, 2007 Order. 

25. Because of these dichotomies 

between the proposed regional 

Reliability Standard and the 

corresponding NERC Standard, we have 

several areas of concern regarding how 

the proposed regional Standard would 

work in practice to ensure Reliable 

Operation in the Western 

Interconnection. Specifically, we are 

concerned with: (1) How entities will 

know whether to follow the national or 

regional Standard in a given situation; 

(2) WECC’s and NERC’s reliance on 

TOP–007–WECC–1 to ensure that 

entities manage power flows using steps 

one through three of the Mitigation Plan 

prior to requesting curtailments; (3) how 

the webSAS tool will work with respect 

to the national and regional Standard; 

and (4) the potential reliability impact 

of reliability coordinators’ inability to 

request curtailments. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

66706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

22NERC Petition at 11. 

23NERC Petition at 28–29. 

24See NERC Glossary definition of ‘‘reliability 

coordinator.’’ 

25Reliability Standard IRO–001–1, Requirement 

R3, provides that the reliability coordinator ‘‘shall 

have clear decision-making authority to act and 

direct actions * * * to preserve the integrity and 

reliability of the Bulk Electric System.’’ 

26Reliability Standard IRO–006–4, Requirement 

R1 provides that a reliability coordinator 

26. With regard to our first concern, 

it is our understanding that in 

responding to unscheduled flows on 

qualified paths, entities would initially 

follow the requirements of the current 

regional TOP–007 Reliability Standard 

(whichever version is in effect), which 

would allow the option of using steps 

one through three of the Mitigation 

Plan. Although the requirement in the 

current regional Reliability Standard 

TOP–STD–007–0 does not specifically 

require Transmission Operators to 

perform steps one through three of the 

Mitigation Plan, it requires 

Transmission Operators to maintain 

flow within Operating Transfer 

Capability Limits, which gives the 

Transmission Operator the authority to 

take whatever actions necessary to 

return within its Operating Transfer 

Capability Limit or SOL (depending on 

the version of the Standard). 

Specifically, as described above, the 

approved regional Reliability Standard 

TOP–STD–007–0 does not allow for 

operation exceeding an Operating 

Transfer Capability Limit for longer than 

a specified period of time. Additionally, 

without prejudging the proposal 

pending before us in Docket No. RM09– 

9–000, we note that proposed regional 

Standard TOP–WECC–007–0 does not 

allow for operation exceeding an SOL 

for longer than a specified period of 

time and also requires a transmission 

operator to take immediate action to 

reduce such flows. Thus, as WECC 

explained with respect to the proposed 

TOP–007–WECC–1, one of the 

Transmission Operator’s options for 

ensuring that flows are maintained 

within Operating Transfer Capability 

Limits is to utilize steps one through 

three. Both of these regional Reliability 

Standards give the transmission 

operator authority to use various means 

to ensure that the system is returned to 

within an SOL or IROL, including 

utilizing the options listed within steps 

one through three of the Mitigation Plan 

if deemed appropriate. If those steps 

prove ineffective, it is our 

understanding that a transmission 

operator may choose, if the path 

qualifies, to request curtailments, which 

would require reliability coordinators 

and balancing authorities to follow steps 

four through nine of the proposed 

regional Standard, IRO–006–WECC–1. 

Because of this, we are unclear how the 

NERC IRO–006–4 national Reliability 

Standard would interact with the 

regional Reliability Standards, or if the 

national and regional Standards are 

duplicative. Accordingly, we request 

comment from NERC, WECC, and other 

interested entities regarding the 

interaction between the differing 

requirements contained in the regional 

versus national Reliability Standard. We 

also seek comment on which of the 

Standards’ requirements take 

precedence and how NERC envisions 

ensuring compliance and consistent 

enforcement with regard to the 

Standards. 

27. In a related vein, NERC indicates 

that proposed IRO–006–WECC–1 is 

more stringent than NERC Reliability 

Standard IRO–006 and ‘‘goes beyond the 

NERC Requirements by establishing a 

process to reduce schedules that prevent 

potential overloads during the next 

operating hour.’’ 22 However, it is not 

clear to the Commission why that same 

benefit is not contained in the 

Mitigation Plan, which is referenced in 

the corresponding NERC Reliability 

Standard. The Commission seeks 

comment on this matter. 

28. Our second concern is that, as 

noted above, the portion of the 

Mitigation Plan that the Commission 

relied upon in determining that the 

current regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–STD–006–0 is more stringent than 

the NERC Standard was contained 

within the procedures for steps one 

through three (i.e., use of phase-angle 

regulators, series capacitors, and backto-back DC lines to mitigate 

unscheduled flows before transaction 

curtailment), which is no longer 

referenced in proposed IRO–006– 

WECC–1. The NERC Petition states that 

another WECC regional Reliability 

Standard, TOP–STD–007–0 or TOP– 

007–WECC–1 (whichever is in effect), 

works in conjunction with IRO–006– 

WECC–1 to ensure these functions are 

performed. However, TOP–STD–007–0 

requires transmission operators to 

ensure that power flows are maintained 

within Operating Transfer Capability 

Limits, but does not explicitly state that 

they must perform steps one through 

three of the Mitigation Plan. Similarly, 

without prejudging the pending 

proposal, it appears that TOP–007– 

WECC–1 generally requires entities to 

take action to reduce the actual flow to 

within SOL levels in within set time 

limits, but does not explicitly require 

action based on the specific options set 

forth in steps one through three of the 

Mitigation Plan. NERC and WECC posit 

that TOP–007–WECC–1 focuses on the 

‘‘what’’ and not the ‘‘how.’’ Nonetheless, 

the Commission is concerned whether 

WECC’s reliance on TOP–STD–007–0 or 

TOP–007–WECC–1 (whichever is in 

effect) is an adequate replacement for 

the currently required pre-curtailment 

actions set forth and currently required 

in steps one through three of the 

Mitigation Plan. We request further 

explanation from NERC and WECC on 

this issue. Depending upon the response 

and comments, the Commission may 

determine it is appropriate to direct 

NERC and WECC to include references 

in IRO–006–WECC–1 to the specific 

actions set forth in steps one through 

three of the Mitigation Plan. 

29. Third, as discussed above, NERC’s 

Petition explains that the webSAS tool 

uses preprogrammed algorithms to 

calculate curtailments and, unless the 

reliability coordinator actively denies 

the request, webSAS approves the 

curtailment within five minutes.23 We 

request additional information regarding 

how the webSAS program works in 

relation to WECC’s proposed IRO–006– 

WECC–1, as well as NERC’s currently 

effective IRO–006–4, which is 

incorporated by reference in the 

Mitigation Plan. For example, we ask 

that comments address how the 

webSAS program incorporates the 

process outlined in the Mitigation Plan. 

We also seek comment regarding how 

differences between the process detailed 

in the Mitigation Plan, which remains 

incorporated by reference in NERC’s 

IRO–006–4, and the webSAS 

programming could create conflicts with 

respect to enforcement. 

30. Fourth, the Commission is 

concerned about the possibility that 

automatic approval through the webSAS 

tool may occur without reliability 

coordinator review, as well as reliability 

coordinators’ inability to request 

curtailments, and the resultant affect on 

reliability. Since, as the NERC Petition 

indicated, reliability coordinators are 

the only entities with the wide-area 

view, it is the Commission’s view that 

it is appropriate that reliability 

coordinators, as the entity with the 

highest level of authority to ensure 

reliable operation of the Bulk-Power 

System,24 have the ability to act to 

ensure reliability if necessary. For 

example, this is consistent with a 

reliability coordinator’s ability to 

initiate relief procedures without first 

receiving a request from a transmission 

operator as established in NERC 

Reliability Standard IRO–001–1 25 and 

IRO–006–4.26 We request comment on 

these concerns. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66707 

experiencing a potential or actual system operating 

limit or interconnection reliability operator limit 

‘‘shall, with its authority and at its discretion, select 

one or more procedures to provide transmission 

loading relief.’’ 

27 5 CFR 1320.11. 

28 44 U.S.C. 3501–20. 

29 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i), 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(3), 5 

CFR 1320.11. The FERC–725E reporting 

requirements originally were approved by OMB on 

10/10/2007. 

30North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 

FERC ¶ 61,260. 

31. While we believe IRO–006– 

WECC–1 generally is acceptable and 

responsive to the directives in the June 

8, 2007 Order, because of the issues 

noted above, we observe that 

maintaining both a regional difference 

in the national Reliability Standard and 

a regional Reliability Standard 

addressing unscheduled flows may be 

unnecessary and confusing. We believe 

it might be more efficient and 

appropriate to incorporate all the WECC 

rules and procedures with respect to 

unscheduled flow mitigation in a single 

document. Thus, the Commission 

requests comments regarding whether it 

should direct WECC to either (1) revise 

the Mitigation Plan referenced by IRO– 

006–4 to incorporate all the WECC rules 

and procedures, thus eliminating the 

need for the regional Reliability 

Standard; or (2) incorporate all the 

WECC rules and procedures into IRO– 

006–WECC–1 and TOP–007–WECC–1 

while eliminating the regional 

difference contained in NERC IRO–006– 

4. 

Summary 

32. We propose to approve proposed 

regional Reliability Standard IRO–006– 

WECC–1 as just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in 

the public interest. We also seek 

comment from the ERO, WECC, and 

other interested entities regarding the 

Commission’s specific concerns 

discussed above. The Commission may 

determine in the Final Rule, after 

considering such comments, that it is 

appropriate to direct WECC to develop 

additional modifications to IRO–006– 

WECC–1 and/or to update the 

Mitigation Plan. 

IV. Information Collection Statement 

33. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) regulations require 

approval of certain information 

collection requirements imposed by 

agency rules.27 Upon approval of a 

collection(s) of information, OMB will 

assign an OMB control number and an 

expiration date. Respondents subject to 

the filing requirements of this proposed 

rule will not be penalized for failing to 

respond to these collections of 

information unless the collections of 

information display a valid OMB 

control number. The Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) 28 requires each 

Federal agency to seek and obtain OMB 

approval before undertaking a collection 

of information directed to ten or more 

persons, or imposed by agency rules.29

34. The Commission is submitting 

these reporting requirements to OMB for 

its review and approval under section 

3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are 

solicited on the Commission’s need for 

this information, whether the 

information will have practical utility, 

the accuracy of provided burden 

estimates, ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing the respondent’s burden, 

including the use of automated 

information techniques. 

35. This Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking proposes to approve a new 

regional Reliability Standard, IRO–006– 

WECC–1, which will replace currently 

effective regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–STD–006–0 approved by the 

Commission on June 8, 2007.30 Rather 

than creating entirely new requirements, 

the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard instead modifies and improves 

the existing regional Reliability 

Standard governing qualified transfer 

path unscheduled flow relief. Thus, this 

proposed rulemaking imposes a 

minimal additional burden on the 

affected entities. 

36. The proposed Reliability Standard 

does not require responsible entities to 

file information with the Commission. 

However, it does require responsible 

entities to develop, provide, and 

maintain certain information for a 

specified period of time, subject to 

inspection by WECC. Specifically, the 

proposed Reliability Standard requires 

the reliability coordinator and balancing 

authorities to document and maintain 

information regarding actions taken in 

response to requests to mitigate 

unscheduled flow. We believe our 

approval of WECC regional Reliability 

Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 will result 

in a minimal increase in reporting 

burdens as compared to current 

practices in WECC. 

37. Commission approval of proposed 

regional Reliability Standard IRO–006– 

WECC–1 would make the standard 

mandatory and enforceable. Therefore, 

the Commission will submit this 

proposed rule to OMB for review and 

approval of the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Title: FERC 725E, Mandatory 

Reliability Standards for the Western 

Electric Coordinating Council. 

Action: Proposed modification to 

FERC–725–E. 

OMB Control No.: 1902–0246. 

Respondents: Balancing Authorities 

and Reliability Coordinator in the 

Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council (WECC). 

Frequency of Responses: On occasion. 

Necessity of the Information: This 

proposed rule would approve a revised 

Reliability Standard modifying the 

existing requirement for entities to 

respond to requests for curtailment. The 

proposed Reliability Standard requires 

entities to maintain documentation 

evidencing their response to such 

requests. 

Internal review: The Commission has 

reviewed the requirements pertaining to 

proposed regional Reliability Standard 

IRO–006–WECC–1 and believes it to be 

just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in 

the public interest. These requirements 

conform to the Commission’s plan for 

efficient information collection, 

communication and management within 

the energy industry. The Commission 

has assured itself, by means of internal 

review, that there is specific, objective 

support for the burden estimates 

associated with the information 

requirements. 

Burden Estimate: The burden for the 

requirements in this proposed rule 

follow: 

Data collection FERC–725E Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total annual 

hours 

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

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

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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

66708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

31Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 

(Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

32 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). 

33 5 U.S.C. 601–12. 

34The RFA definition of ‘‘small entity’’ refers to 

the definition provided in the Small Business Act 

(SBA), which defines a ‘‘small business concern’’ as 

a business that is independently owned and 

operated and that is not dominant in its field of 

operation. See 15 U.S.C. 632. According to the SBA, 

a small electric utility is defined as one that has a 

total electric output of less than four million MWh 

in the preceding year. 

38. Total Annual hours for Collection: 

36 reporting + 36 recordkeeping = 72 

hours. 

Information Collection Costs: The 

Commission seeks comments on the 

costs to comply with these 

requirements. It has projected the 

average annualized cost to be $5,760, as 

shown below: 

Reporting = 36 hours @ $120/hour = 

$4,320 

Recordkeeping = 36 hours @ $40/hour = 

$1,440 

Total Costs = Reporting ($4,320) + 

Recordkeeping ($1,440) = $5,760 

39. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 

[Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the 

Executive Director, Phone: (202) 502– 

8663, fax: (202) 273–0873, e-mail: 

DataClearance@ferc.gov]. Comments on 

the requirements of the proposed rule 

may also be sent to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk 

Officer for the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission]. For security 

reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please 

reference OMB Control Number 1902– 

0246 and the docket number of this 

proposed rulemaking in your 

submission. 

V. Environmental Analysis 

40. 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.31 The actions proposed 

here fall within the categorical 

exclusion in the Commission’s 

regulations for rules that are clarifying, 

corrective or procedural, for information 

gathering, analysis, and 

dissemination.32 Accordingly, neither 

an environmental impact statement nor 

environmental assessment is required. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

41. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 33 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

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

reliability coordinators and balancing 

authorities) to which the requirements 

of this Rule would apply do not fall 

within the definition of small entities.34

The Commission estimates that only 2– 

4 of the 35 balancing authorities (or a 

maximum of 11.4%) are small. The 

proposed Reliability Standard reflects a 

modification of existing requirements. 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission 

certifies that this Rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Accordingly, 

no regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

VII. Comment Procedures 

42. 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 December 28, 2010. 

Comments must refer to Docket No. 

RM09–19–000, and must include the 

commenter’s name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their 

address in their comments. 

43. 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. 

44. Commenters that are not able to 

file comments electronically must send 

an original copy of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

45. 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. 

VIII. Document Availability 

46. 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. 

47. 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. 

48. 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. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27408 Filed 10–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 668 

[Docket ID ED–2010–OPE–0012] 

RIN 1840–AD04 

Program Integrity: Gainful 

Employment; Correction 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting 

sessions; correction. 

SUMMARY: On October 18, 2010, we 

published in the Federal Register (75 

FR 63763) a notice announcing public 

meeting sessions to receive oral 

presentations and to interact with 

commenters regarding comments that 

were submitted to the Department of 

Education in response to its Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on Program 

Integrity: Gainful Employment, 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43616). 

This document corrects the ending 

date for members of the public to 

register to attend—only—the public 

meeting sessions that is listed in the 

October 18, 2010 notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leigh Arsenault, U.S. Department of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS