[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71448-71457]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28626]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM13-13-000; Order No. 789]

Regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2--Contingency Reserve

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 (Contingency Reserve). The North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC) submitted the regional Reliability Standard
to the Commission for approval. The regional Reliability Standard
applies to balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups in the WECC
Region and is meant to specify the quantity and types of

contingency reserve required to ensure reliability under normal and
abnormal conditions.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective January 28,
2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Andr[eacute]s L[oacute]pez Esquerra (Technical Information), Office
of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 145 FERC ] 61,141, United States of America,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark.

Regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2--Contingency Reserve

Docket No. RM13-13-000

Order No. 789
Final Rule
(Issued November 21, 2013)
    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2
(Contingency Reserve). The North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) and Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)
submitted the regional Reliability Standard to the Commission for
approval. The WECC regional Reliability Standard applies to balancing
authorities and reserve sharing groups in the WECC Region and is meant
to specify the quantity and types of contingency reserve required to
ensure reliability under normal and abnormal conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission approves the associated violation risk factors
(VRFs) and violation severity levels (VSLs), implementation plan, and
effective date proposed by NERC and WECC. The Commission also approves
the retirement of WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0
(Operating Reserves) and the removal of two WECC Regional Definitions,
``Non-Spinning Reserve'' and ``Spinning Reserve,'' from the Glossary of
Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary).\2\ In
addition, the Commission directs NERC to submit an informational filing
after the first two years of implementation of regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 that addresses the adequacy of contingency
reserve in the Western Interconnection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation Definitions
Used in the Rules of Procedure, Appendix 2 to the NERC Rules of
Procedure (effective September 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards

    3. Section 215(c) of the FPA requires a Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and
enforceable Reliability Standards that are subject to Commission review
and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced
by NERC, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission
independently.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. A Regional Entity may develop a Reliability Standard for
Commission approval to be effective in that region only.\4\ In Order
No. 672, the Commission stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).

    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.\5\

    \5\ Rules 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 291, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On April 19, 2007, the Commission accepted delegation agreements
between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities.\6\ In the order,
the Commission accepted WECC as a Regional Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,060, order on reh'g, 120 FERC ] 61,260 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NERC Reliability Standard BAL-002-1 (Disturbance Control
Performance)

    6. In Order No. 693, the Commission approved NERC Reliability
Standard BAL-002-0.\7\ On January 10, 2011, the Commission approved a
revised version of the NERC Reliability Standard, BAL-002-1
(Disturbance Control Performance), which NERC developed and submitted
to address directives contained in Order No. 693.\8\ The purpose of
NERC Reliability Standard BAL-002-1 is to ensure that a balancing
authority is able to use its contingency reserve to balance resources
and demand and return Interconnection frequency within defined limits
following a Reportable Disturbance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order
No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \8\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 134 FERC ] 61,015
(2011).
    \9\ The NERC Glossary defines Contingency Reserve as ``[t]he
provision of capacity deployed by the Balancing Authority to meet
the Disturbance Control Standard (DCS) and other NERC and Regional
Reliability Organization contingency requirements.'' The NERC
Glossary defines Reportable Disturbance as ``[a]ny event that causes
an [Area Control Error (ACE)] change greater than or equal to 80% of
a Balancing Authority's or reserve sharing group's most severe
contingency. The definition of a reportable disturbance is specified
by each Regional Reliability Organization. This definition may not
be retroactively adjusted in response to observed performance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. WECC Regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0

    7. On June 8, 2007, the Commission approved WECC regional
Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0, which is currently in effect.\10\
The Commission stated that regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0
was more stringent than the NERC Reliability Standard BAL-002-0 because
the WECC regional Reliability Standard required: (1) a more stringent
minimum reserve requirement; and (2) restoration of contingency
reserves within 60 minutes, as opposed to the 90-minute restoration
period required by the NERC Reliability Standard BAL-002-0.\11\ The
Commission directed WECC to make minor modifications to regional
Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0. For example, the Commission
determined that: (1) regional definitions should conform to definitions
set forth in the NERC Glossary unless a specific deviation has been
justified; and (2) documents that are referenced in the Reliability
Standard should be attached to the Reliability Standards. The
Commission also found that it is important that regional Reliability
Standards and NERC Reliability Standards achieve a reasonable level of
consistency in their structure so that there is a common understanding
of the elements. Finally, the Commission directed WECC to address
stakeholder

concerns regarding ambiguities in the terms ``load responsibility'' and
``firm transaction.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,260 (2007).
    \11\ Id. P 53.
    \12\ Id. P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Remanded WECC Regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-1

    8. On March 25, 2009, NERC submitted to the Commission for approval
WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-1 (Contingency
Reserves). In Order No. 740, the Commission remanded regional
Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-1.\13\ In Order No. 740, the
Commission identified five issues with remanded regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-1: (1) the restoration period for contingency
reserve; (2) the calculation of minimum contingency reserve; (3) the
use of firm load to meet the contingency reserve requirement; (4) the
use of demand-side management as a resource; and (5) miscellaneous
directives.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Version One Regional Reliability Standard for Resource and
Demand Balancing, Order No. 740, 75 FR 65,964, 133 FERC ] 61,063
(2010).
    \14\ Order No. 740, 133 FERC ] 61,063 at PP 26, 39, 49, 60, 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Restoration Period for Contingency Reserve
    9. The Commission stated that, while the currently-effective WECC
regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0 requires restoration of
contingency reserve within 60 minutes, the remanded WECC regional
Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-1 would have extended the restoration
period to 90 minutes. The Commission determined that NERC and WECC did
not justify the extension of the reserve restoration period from 60
minutes to 90 minutes or that such an extension created an acceptable
level of risk within the Western Interconnection.
2. Calculation of Minimum Contingency Reserve
    10. The Commission stated that WECC regional Reliability Standard
BAL-STD-002-0 currently requires that minimum contingency reserve must
equal the greater of: (1) the loss of generating capacity due to forced
outages of generation or transmission equipment that would result from
the most severe single contingency or (2) the sum of five percent of
load responsibility served by hydro generation and seven percent of the
load responsibility served by thermal generation. The remanded WECC
regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-1 included a similar
requirement, except that instead of basing the calculation of minimum
contingency reserve on the sum of five percent of load responsibility
served by hydro generation and seven percent of the load responsibility
served by thermal generation, the minimum contingency reserve
calculation would be based on the sum of three percent of load
(generation minus station service minus net actual interchange) plus
three percent of net generation (generation minus station service).
    11. WECC submitted eight hours of data from each of the four
operating seasons (summer, fall, winter, and spring, both on and off-
peak), which demonstrated that the proposed methodology for calculating
minimum contingency reserve would reduce total contingency reserve
required in the Western Interconnection for each of the eight hours
assessed when compared with the methodology in the currently-effective
WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0.
    12. The Commission accepted WECC's proposal, finding that ``WECC's
proposed calculation of minimum contingency reserves is more stringent
than the national requirement and could be part of a future proposal
that the Commission could find to be just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.'' \15\ The
Commission observed, however, that ``WECC also states that the proposed
regional Reliability Standard does not excuse any non-performance with
the continent-wide Disturbance Control Standard, which requires each
balancing authority or reserve sharing group to activate sufficient
contingency reserve to comply with the Disturbance Control Standard.''
\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. P 39.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. The Commission also stated that, if WECC resubmitted its
proposed methodology for calculating minimum contingency reserve, WECC
and NERC could support its proposal with ``audits specifically focused
on contingency reserves and whether the balancing authorities are
meeting the adequacy and deliverability requirements . . . [t]his
auditing also could address the concerns raised by some entities in
WECC that the original eight hours of data provided in NERC's petition
is insufficient to demonstrate that the proposed minimum contingency
reserve requirements are sufficiently stringent to ensure that entities
within the Western Interconnection will meet the requirements of NERC's
continent-wide Disturbance Control Standard, BAL-002-0.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. P 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Use of Firm Load To Meet Contingency Reserve Requirement
    14. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking preceding Order No. 740,
the Commission stated that, unlike the currently-effective regional
Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0, the remanded regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-1 was not technically sound because it allowed
balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups within WECC to use
firm load to meet their minimum contingency reserve requirements once
the reliability coordinator declared a capacity or energy
emergency.\18\ However, in Order No. 740, the Commission accepted
WECC's proposal finding that, although remanded regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-1 allowed balancing authorities and reserve
sharing groups to use ``Load, other than Interruptible Load, once the
Reliability Coordinator has declared a capacity or energy emergency,''
these entities would not be authorized to shed firm load unless the
applicable reliability coordinator had issued a level 3 energy
emergency alert pursuant to Reliability Standard EOP-002-2.1. The
Commission directed WECC to develop revised language to clarify this
point.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. P 43.
    \19\ Id. PP 48-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Demand-Side Management as a Resource
    15. The Commission determined that remanded regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-1 did not allow demand-side management that is
technically capable of providing this service to be used as a resource
for contingency reserve. The Commission directed WECC to develop
modifications that would explicitly provide that demand-side management
technically capable of providing this service may be used as a resource
for both spinning and non-spinning contingency reserve.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. P 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Miscellaneous Directives
    16. The Commission directed WECC to consider comments regarding the
meaning of the term ``net generation.'' The Commission also directed
WECC to consider comments stating that the WECC regional Reliability
Standard did not assign any responsibility or obligations on generator
owners and generator operators, and that balancing authorities may be
required to carry a disproportionate share of the contingency reserve
obligation within the Western Interconnection.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. P 66.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Proposed Regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2

    17. On April 12, 2013, NERC and WECC petitioned the Commission to
approve regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 and the associated
violation risk factors and violation severity levels, effective date,
and implementation plan. The petition also requests retirement of the
currently-effective WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0
and removal of two WECC Regional Definitions, ``Non-Spinning Reserve''
and ``Spinning Reserve,'' from the NERC Glossary. The petition states
that the proposed WECC regional Reliability Standard is just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest because it satisfies the factors set forth in Order No.
672, which the Commission applies when reviewing a proposed Reliability
Standard.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Petition, Exhibit A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. NERC states in the petition that the Resource and Demand
Balancing (BAL) group of Reliability Standards ensure that resources
and demand are balanced to maintain Interconnection frequency within
limits. The petition states that the purpose of NERC Reliability
Standard BAL-002-1 (Disturbance Control Performance) is to ensure the
balancing authority is able to use contingency reserve to balance
resources and demand and return Interconnection frequency within
defined limits following a Reportable Disturbance. NERC maintains that
the purpose of the proposed WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-
WECC-2 is to provide a regional Reliability Standard that specifies the
quantity and types of contingency reserve required to ensure
reliability under normal and abnormal conditions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Petition at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. NERC asserts that the proposed regional Reliability Standard
addresses the five issues identified in Order No. 740, which remanded
the previously proposed WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-
WECC-1. First, the petition explains that proposed regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, Requirement R1, includes a 60-minute
restoration period for contingency reserve, which is the same as the
currently-effective regional WECC Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-
0.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Second, the petition includes two-years of additional data to
support the method for calculating minimum contingency reserve proposed
in WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, Requirement R1,
which is the same as the calculation proposed and accepted by the
Commission in the remanded WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-
WECC-1.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 13-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Third, the petition states that the proposed WECC regional
Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, Requirement R1, was modified to
clarify that balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups within
WECC are subject to the same restrictions regarding the use of firm
load for contingency reserve as balancing authorities elsewhere
operating under the NERC Reliability Standards. NERC indicates that it
has clarified the connection to the Energy Emergency Level 3 by
incorporating language from Reliability Standard EOP-002-2.1,
Attachment 1, Section B, into WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-
002-WECC-2, Requirement R1.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Fourth, according to the petition, WECC regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, Requirement R1 was modified to explicitly
provide that demand-side management technically capable of providing
the service may be used as a resource for contingency reserve.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 16-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Fifth, the petition states that WECC regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 replaces the term ``net generation'' with the
phrase ``generating energy values average over each Clock Hour.'' The
petition notes that the regional Reliability Standard also includes a
reference to Opinion No. 464, which addresses the issue of behind-the-
meter generation, in response to comments raised in the Order No. 740
rulemaking.\28\ The petition also states that WECC regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 allows for impacted balancing authorities and
reserve sharing groups to enter into transactions to provide
contingency reserve for another balancing authority or procure
contingency reserve from another balancing authority to more equitably
allocate generation for purposes of the reserve calculation. The
petition further states that the NERC Functional Model, Version 5, more
closely aligns the tasks in the WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-
002-WECC-2 with balancing authorities than to generator operators.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ California Indep. Sys. Operation Corp., Opinion No. 464,
104 FERC ] 61,196 (2003).
    \29\ NERC, Reliability Functional Model, Version 5 (approved May
2010), available at http://www.nerc.com/files/Functional_Model_V5_Final_2009Dec1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    24. On July 18, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve regional Reliability Standard
BAL-002-WECC-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. The Commission also proposed
to approve the associated violation risk factors, violation severity
levels, implementation plan, effective date, and the retirement of WECC
regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0 (Operating Reserves) and
the removal of two WECC Regional Definitions, ``Non-Spinning Reserve''
and ``Spinning Reserve,'' from the NERC Glossary. The NOPR stated that
the WECC regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than the NERC
Reliability Standard BAL-002-1 because the regional Reliability
Standard requires applicable entities to restore contingency reserve
within 60 minutes following the Disturbance Recovery Period while the
NERC Reliability Standard only requires restoration of contingency
reserve within 90 minutes. The NOPR also stated that the method for
calculating minimum contingency reserve in the regional Reliability
Standard is more stringent than Requirement R3.1 in NERC Reliability
Standard BAL-002-1 because it requires minimum contingency reserve
levels that will be at least equal to the NERC Reliability Standard
minimum (i.e., equal to the most severe single contingency) and more
often will be greater. The NOPR further stated that NERC and WECC
addressed the directives in Order No. 740. In addition, the NOPR
proposed to direct NERC to submit an informational filing after the
first two years of implementation of regional Reliability Standard BAL-
002-WECC-2 that addresses the adequacy of contingency reserve in the
Western Interconnection.
    25. In response to the NOPR, NERC and WECC, jointly, and Powerex
Corp. (Powerex), Portland General Electric Company (Portland),
California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), and Tacoma
Power (Tacoma) filed comments. We address below the issues raised in
the NOPR and comments.

II. Discussion

    26. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we approve WECC regional
Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. For
applicable entities in the WECC Region, regional Reliability Standard
BAL-002-WECC-2 specifies

the quantity and types of contingency reserve required to ensure
reliability under normal and abnormal conditions. WECC regional
Reliability Standard is more stringent than the NERC Reliability
Standard BAL-002-1 because the regional Reliability Standard requires
applicable entities to restore contingency reserve within 60 minutes
following the Disturbance Recovery Period while the NERC Reliability
Standard only requires restoration of contingency reserve within 90
minutes. In addition, the method for calculating minimum contingency
reserve in the regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than
Requirement R3.1 in NERC Reliability Standard BAL-002-1 because it
requires minimum contingency reserve levels that will be at least equal
to the NERC Reliability Standard minimum (i.e., equal to the most
severe single contingency) and more often will be greater.\30\ We also
conclude that NERC and WECC addressed the Commission's directives in
Order No. 740. In addition to approving regional Reliability Standard
BAL-002-WECC-2, the Commission directs NERC to submit an informational
filing after the first two years of implementation of the regional
Reliability Standard that addresses the adequacy of contingency reserve
in the Western Interconnection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ As stated in Order No. 740, the proposed WECC regional
Reliability Standard does not excuse non-performance with NERC
Reliability Standard BAL-002-1. Order No. 740, 133 FERC ] 61,063 at
P 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. We discuss below the following issues raised in the NOPR and
comments: (A) new methodology for calculating minimum contingency
reserve; (B) elimination of interruptible imports requirement; (C)
qualifying resources for contingency reserve; (D) use of the term
``Load''; (E) use of net generation data to calculate contingency
reserve; (F) violation risk factors and violation severity levels; (G)
removal of terms from the NERC Glossary; and (H) implementation plan
and effective date.

A. New Methodology for Calculating Minimum Contingency Reserve

NERC Petition
    28. WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 includes a
new methodology for calculating minimum contingency reserve, based on
the greater of the most severe single contingency or the sum of three
percent of load plus three percent of net generation. The new
methodology is different from the methodology in WECC regional
Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0, which is based on the greater of
the most severe single contingency or the sum of five percent of load
responsibility served by hydro generation and seven percent of the load
responsibility served by thermal generation.
    29. WECC provides ``two years' worth of additional data showing the
amount of contingency reserves that would be calculated for each
Balancing Authority and Reserve Sharing Group under the proposed
methodology.'' \31\ WECC states that ``during the two-year period of
2010-2012, the average increase/decrease in Contingency Reserve
required under the existing methodology juxtaposed to the proposed
methodology was an average decrease of 137 MW across the Western
Interconnection'' and that a 137 MW decrease represents ``.000932 of
WECC's peak load and .001934 of WECC's minimum load'' within that two-
year period.\32\ WECC concludes that ``implementation of the proposed
methodology will, on average, reduce the amount of Contingency Reserve
held within the Interconnection; however, the average change is so
small in comparison to the load served within the Interconnection that
it should have no adverse impact on reliability.'' \33\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Petition at 13.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOPR
    30. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve the new
methodology and to direct NERC to submit an informational filing
following implementation of the regional Reliability Standard that
addresses the adequacy of contingency reserve levels in the Western
Interconnection.
    31. The NOPR stated that, while the data submitted by NERC shows an
average decrease of 137 MW, the data also shows that the largest single
decrease in contingency reserve equaled 826 MW during the two-year
study period when comparing the current and proposed methodologies.\34\
The NOPR observed that, at the time of the 826 MW decrease (i.e., 9/15/
10 at 14:00), the contingency reserve value using the current
methodology for calculating minimum contingency reserve was 8259 MW
versus 7434 MW using the new methodology. The NOPR stated that the 826
MW decrease represented a 10 percent decrease in contingency reserve at
that time interval.\35\ The NOPR noted that the data also show a
widening gap over time (e.g., a difference of 114 MW at the beginning
date but 192 MW at the end date).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Petition, Exhibit G (data point at date/time interval 9/15/
10 at 14:00).
    \35\ Petition at 16.
    \36\ The 114 MW and 192 MW values are calculated by plotting a
trend line on the contingency reserve data submitted by WECC using
the existing methodology and plotting a trend line on the
contingency reserve data submitted by WECC using the proposed
methodology. The initial difference between the two trend lines is
114 MW while the difference at the end of the trend lines is 192 MW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The NOPR proposed to direct NERC to submit an informational
filing to the Commission assessing contingency reserve levels in the
Western Interconnection after the first two years of implementation of
the regional Reliability Standard. In the information filing, NERC, in
consultation with WECC, would provide an assessment of minimum
contingency reserve levels in the Western Interconnection following
implementation of the new methodology. The NOPR stated that the
informational filing should assess whether the new methodology for
calculating minimum contingency reserve levels has had an adverse
impact on reliability in the Western Interconnection and should include
the data that NERC and WECC use to assess the sufficiency of the
minimum contingency reserve levels under the new methodology. The NOPR
stated that such data could include, but need not be limited to an
increase or decrease in the ``Average Percent Non-Recovery Disturbance
Control Standards (DCS) Events,'' \37\ an increase or decrease in the
average Contingency Reserve Restoration Period, an increase or decrease
in the number of events larger than the minimum contingency reserve
levels, and any other information that NERC or WECC deem relevant. The
NOPR proposed to direct NERC to submit the informational filing to the
Commission 90 days after the end of the two-year period following
implementation. The NOPR stated that NERC may choose to submit the
informational filing sooner if NERC identifies issues with contingency
reserve levels in the Western Interconnection that may require
immediate action, and that the Commission would review the
informational filing to determine whether any action is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See NERC, Metric AL2-4 (Average Percent Non-Recovery of
Disturbance Control Standard (DCS) Events), available at http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ri/Pages/DCSEvents.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    33. NERC and WECC support the NOPR proposal. NERC commits to submit
an informational filing that assesses whether the methodology for

calculating minimum contingency reserve levels has had an adverse
impact on reliability in the Western Interconnection. NERC states that
the informational filing will include the data used to make the
assessment and will clarify the effect of WECC regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 on reliability in the Western Interconnection.
    34. Tacoma and Portland maintain that the new methodology for
calculating contingency reserve is ambiguous because the methodology
uses values based on hourly integrated load and hourly integrated
generation (i.e., averages over the course of a given hour). Tacoma and
Portland assert that this is a change over the use of instantaneous
megawatt values under WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0.
Tacoma and Portland state that it is unclear how the new methodology
should be applied because it is unclear whether the hour referred to is
the previous hour, a forecast for the next hour, or a value for the
hour determined after-the-fact. Tacoma states that if the hour referred
to is the previous hour, the value will no longer be pertinent to real-
time operational data and real-time application.
    35. Portland states that the new methodology could result in
significant reductions in contingency reserve at specific times, which
could have an impact on frequency response capabilities. Portland also
questions the data WECC submitted to support the new methodology.
Portland states that three of the six entities surveyed by WECC did not
use the previous methodology (i.e., the sum of five percent of load
responsibility served by hydro generation and seven percent of the load
responsibility served by thermal generation) and instead based
contingency reserve values on the most severe single contingency. In
addition, Portland states that ``two years of data is not enough to
show the variability in water years for a region structured around
hydropower.''\38\ Portland recommends requiring 10 years' worth of
data. Portland also states that the new methodology unfairly shifts the
burden on providing reserves to the sink balancing authorities and
load-serving entities, which may not be able to acquire the reserves.
Portland further states that, if the Commission approves the regional
Reliability Standard, NERC should be required to file annual reports
for five years instead of a single report after two years. Portland
maintains that balancing authorities may be conservative and carry
additional reserves in the first year and less so in later years, and
thus requiring reporting for five years will provide a more accurate
picture of the regional Reliability Standard's impact. Portland also
states that NERC should provide a comparative analysis of the new
methodology and the old methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Portland Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    36. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal directing NERC, in
consultation with WECC, to submit an informational filing two years
after implementation of WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-
WECC-2 that assesses whether the new methodology for calculating
minimum contingency reserve levels has had an adverse impact on
reliability in the Western Interconnection. Consistent with NERC's
comments, the informational filing should include the data that NERC
and WECC use to assess the sufficiency of the minimum contingency
reserve levels under the new methodology. NERC is directed to submit
the informational filing 90 days after the end of the two-year period
following implementation. The Commission will review the informational
filing to determine whether any action is warranted. NERC may submit
the informational filing sooner if NERC or WECC identifies issues with
contingency reserve levels in the Western Interconnection that require
more immediate action.
    37. We reject the comments submitted by Tacoma and Portland
concerning the new methodology and informational filing. We determine
that the use of ``hourly integrated Load'' and ``hourly integrated
generation'' is not ambiguous or substantively different from the
current practice of calculating contingency reserve. Regional
Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, Requirement R1.3, explains that
these terms are based on ``real-time hourly load and generating energy
values averaged over each Clock Hour.'' Moreover, the term ``Clock
Hour'' is defined in the NERC Glossary and refers to the current
hour.\39\ In addition, using average values over the course of an hour
is not different from what is required by regional Reliability Standard
BAL-STD-002-0, which states in the Measures section that ``a
Responsible Entity identified in Section A.4 must maintain 100% of
required Operating Reserve levels based upon data averaged over each
clock hour.'' Ultimately, regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2,
Requirement R1, now requires minimum contingency reserve to be
calculated from load and generation amounts, but it does not change the
time frame for calculating minimum contingency reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ``Clock Hour: The 60-minute period ending at:00. All
surveys, measurements, and reports are based on Clock Hour periods
unless specifically noted.'' NERC Glossary at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. We also reject Portland's comment that the new methodology
shifts the burden of providing reserves to sink balancing authorities
and load serving entities, which may be unable to acquire the necessary
reserves. As we stated in Order No. 740, we agree with NERC and WECC
that the ``equal split between load and generation [in the new
methodology] represents a reasonable balance to moderate shifts in
Contingency Reserve responsibility and costs among the applicable
entities.'' \40\ Moreover, Portland does not provide any evidence that
sink balancing authorities or load-serving entities will be unable to
acquire the necessary reserves.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Petition at 16; see also Order No. 740, 133 FERC ] 61,063
at P 41.
    \41\ In developing the implementation plan, NERC recognized that
the new methodology would require responsible entities to enter into
contractual agreements and negotiations and allowed sufficient time
for responsible entities to enter into such arrangements. Petition,
Exhibit A at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. With respect to Portland's concerns regarding WECC's data and
the informational filing, the informational filing is intended to
identify any issues regarding the adequacy of contingency reserve
levels in the Western Interconnection and the impact on other
reliability areas such as frequency response. We are satisfied that
WECC provided enough representative data to conclude that the new
methodology will likely not result in significantly less average
contingency reserve in the Western Interconnection. However, for the
reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that it is necessary
to monitor and assess contingency reserve levels in the Western
Interconnection following implementation of the regional Reliability
Standard. We are not inclined at this time to require more than two
years of data as Portland suggests. The Commission intends to analyze
the two-year informational filing and determine whether it adequately
addresses the sufficiency of the proposed required reserve levels in
the Western Interconnection. Portland or other entities may also
examine the filing and, if there is sufficient technical analysis that
suggests contingency reserve levels may be inadequate, the Commission
may direct NERC and/or WECC to submit additional informational filings
in the future. The

Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to direct NERC to file an
informational filing two years after implementation of the regional
Reliability Standard.

B. Removal of Interruptible Imports Requirement NERC Petition

    40. Regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, Requirement R3,
states that:

    Each Sink Balancing Authority and each sink Reserve Sharing
Group shall maintain an amount of Operating Reserve, in addition to
the minimum Contingency Reserve in Requirement R1, equal to the
amount of Operating Reserve-Supplemental for any Interchange
Transaction designated as part of the Source Balancing Authority's
Operating Reserve-Supplemental or source Reserve Sharing Group's
Operating Reserve-Supplemental, except within the first sixty
minutes following an event requiring the activation of Contingency
Reserve.

    41. NERC maintains that Requirement R3 is a clarification of an
existing requirement in WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-
0, which requires additional reserves for interruptible imports. NERC
explains that the standard drafting team removed the term
``interruptible imports'' because it is not a defined term in the NERC
Glossary and is subject to misinterpretation. NERC states that the
standard drafting team replaced the term with clarifying language
describing which types of transactions must be covered by additional
reserves. NERC observes that the continent-wide Reliability Standard
BAL-002-1 does not require reserves for Interchange Transactions
designated as part of the source balancing authority or source reserve
sharing group Operating Reserve-Supplemental and thus the requirement
in the regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than the
continent-wide Reliability Standard.
Comments
    42. Powerex maintains that, while the term ``interruptible
imports'' has not been clearly defined by WECC or NERC, the solution is
not to remove the term from the regional Reliability Standard. Powerex
states that removal of interruptible imports results in an inferior
regional Reliability Standard because it effectively eliminates any
Reliability Standard specifying a reserve requirement for interruptible
imports. Powerex maintains that balancing authorities will no longer be
required to set aside any capacity to cover interruptible imports into
their balancing authority areas. Powerex states that the interruptible
imports requirement has served to ``differentiate an import of
interruptible energy--a product that may be curtailed for ANY reason .
. . from a `firm' energy import that is supported by sufficient
generating resources within the source [balancing authority] to assure
the energy will not be curtailed during the delivery period.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Powerex Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    43. The Commission rejects Powerex's comments concerning removal of
the term ``interruptible imports.'' The Commission agrees with NERC and
WECC that Requirement R3 identifies the types of transactions,
including Interchange Transactions, that must be covered by additional
reserves. Accordingly, we disagree with Powerex that the concept of
interruptible imports has been removed from the regional Reliability
Standard. Replacing the term ``interruptible imports'' with the NERC-
defined term ``Interchange Transaction'' eliminates ambiguity from the
regional Reliability Standard by including all types of Interchange
Transactions (e.g., firm or interruptible) as it pertains to
calculating Operating Reserve. Moreover, in response to comments during
the standards development process, the standard drafting team
reinforced this view in stating that ``[Requirement] R3 of the proposed
standard directly addresses the concept of interruptible schedules and
[Requirement] R4 addresses the concept of on-demand energy.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Petition, Exhibit C at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Powerex states that ``in WECC there exists an unacceptable lack
of clarity with respect to reserve requirements associated with energy
interchange scheduling.'' Powerex also ``acknowledges that the proposed
BAL-002-WECC-2 standard alone cannot address all of these concerns, but
believes it is premature, unwarranted, and problematic to eliminate the
requirement that interruptible imports carry 100% reserves until these
broader concerns are addressed by some other regulatory requirement.''
We disagree with Powerex that it is appropriate to condition approval
of regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, and the removal of the
term ``interruptible imports,'' on first addressing existing problems
concerning reserve requirements associated with energy interchange
scheduling. Instead, we agree with NERC and WECC that the regional
Reliability Standard, in requiring additional reserves for Interchange
Transactions, is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability
Standard BAL-002, and we approve the requirement on that basis.

C. Qualifying Resources for Contingency Reserve

NERC Petition
    45. WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, Requirement
R.1.1.2 states that contingency reserve may be comprised of any
combination of the reserve types specified below:
    [ssquf] Operating Reserve--Spinning
    [ssquf] Operating Reserve--Supplemental
    [ssquf] Interchange Transactions designated by the Source
Balancing.
    [ssquf] Authority as Operating Reserve--Supplemental
    [ssquf] Reserve held by other entities by agreement that is
deliverable on Firm Transmission Service.
    [ssquf] A resource, other than generation or load, that can provide
energy or reduce energy consumption.
    [ssquf] Load, including demand response resources, Demand-Side
Management resources, Direct Control Load Management, Interruptible
Load or Interruptible Demand, or any other Load made available for
curtailment by the Balancing Authority or the Reserve Sharing Group via
contract or agreement.
    [ssquf] All other load, not identified above, once the Reliability
Coordinator has declared an energy emergency alert signifying that firm
load interruption is imminent or in progress.
    46. ``Operating Reserve--Spinning'' is defined in the NERC Glossary
to mean ``generation (synchronized or capable of being synchronized to
the system) that is fully available to serve load within the
Disturbance Recovery Period following the contingency event; or load
fully removable from the system within the Disturbance Recovery Period
following the contingency event.''
Comments
    47. CAISO seeks clarification that non-traditional resources,
including electric storage facilities, may qualify as ``Operating
Reserve--Spinning'' so long as they meet the technical and performance
requirements in Requirement R2 (i.e., that the resources must be
immediately and automatically responsive to frequency deviations
through the action of a control system and capable of fully responding
within ten minutes).
Commission Determination
    48. The Commission determines that non-traditional resources,
including electric storage facilities, may qualify as ``Operating
Reserve--Spinning''

provided those resources satisfy the technical and performance
requirements in Requirement R2. Our determination is supported by the
standard drafting team's response to a comment during the standard
drafting process where the standard drafting team stated that
``technologies, such as batteries, both contemplated and not yet
contemplated are included in the standard as potential resources--so
long as the undefined resource can meet the response characteristics
described in the standard * * * The language does not preclude any
specific technology; rather, the language delineates how that
technology must [] respond.'' \44\ We also note that non-traditional
resources could contribute to contingency reserve under the regional
Reliability Standard if they are resources, ``other than generation or
load, that can provide energy or reduce energy consumption.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Petition, Exhibit C at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Use of the Term Load in Requirement R.1.1

NERC Petition
    49. WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, Requirement
R.1.1, states that minimum contingency reserve must equal the ``amount
of Contingency Reserve equal to the loss of the most severe single
contingency'' or the ``amount of Contingency Reserve equal to the sum
of three percent of hourly integrated Load plus three percent of hourly
integrated generation.''
Comments
    50. Tacoma states that the term ``Load'' is defined in the NERC
Glossary as ``[a]n end-use device or customer that receives power from
the electric system.'' Tacoma maintains that the term ``Load'' in
Requirement R.1.1 cannot be interpreted to be a device or customer that
receives power from the electric system because ``the requirement
directs the taking of a percentage of the `Load' and treating it as a
measurement of power, like megawatts.'' Tacoma recommends that the
defined term ``Load'' should be replaced with the undefined term
``load.''
Commission Determination
    51. Based on the context of Requirement R.1.1, the Commission
understands that the use of the term ``Load'' does not refer to an end-
use device or customer. Instead, it refers to the power consumption
associated with the end-use device or customer (i.e., Load), which is
then applied in calculating minimum contingency reserve levels. With
that understanding, the Commission will not direct NERC to change
``Load'' to ``load'' in Requirement R.1.1 as requested by Tacoma. NERC
and WECC may modify this language in the next version of the regional
Reliability Standard.

E. Use of Net Generation Data To Calculate Contingency Reserve

NERC Petition
    52. NERC states that the ``calculation of minimum Contingency
Reserves is based on three percent of net generation and three percent
of net load and this fairly balances the responsibilities of
Contingency Reserve providers with the financial obligations of those
who would benefit most from those services.'' \45\ Requirement R1.1.3
states that the minimum contingency reserve calculation should be based
on ``real-time hourly load and generating energy values averaged over
each Clock Hour (excluding Qualifying Facilities covered in 18 CFR
292.101, as addressed in FERC Opinion 464).'' In Requirement R1.1.3,
NERC states that the standard drafting team replaced the term ``net
generation'' with ``generating energy values averaged over each Clock
Hour.'' NERC maintains that the substitution was in response to
comments in the Order No. 740 rulemaking regarding the definition of
the term ``net generation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Petition at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    53. Tacoma states that changing metered data to net generation for
real-time operations would result in undue burden and cause a delay in
implementation because many balancing authorities do not use net
generation in their minimum contingency reserve calculation. Tacoma
states that it uses gross generation for real-time operations and
includes station service within its entity load. Tacoma explains that
it prepares annual reports that include net generation, but Tacoma
asserts that using net generation in real-time operations will require
``significant changes in the data and telemetry that must be available
in real-time operations.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Tacoma Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    54. The Commission notes that NERC's petition states that the
``calculation of minimum Contingency Reserves is based on three percent
of net generation.'' \47\ Based on NERC's description, the NOPR also
used the term ``net generation'' at various points. However,
Requirement R1 of WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, by
design, does not use the term ``net generation.'' Instead, Requirement
R1.1.3 states that the minimum contingency reserve calculation should
be based on ``real-time hourly load and generating energy values
averaged over each Clock Hour (excluding Qualifying Facilities covered
in 18 CFR 292.101, as addressed in FERC Opinion 464).'' Accordingly,
Tacoma's concern about the use of ``net generation'' to calculate
minimum contingency reserve is moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Petition at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels

    55. The petition states that each Requirement of the proposed WECC
regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 includes one violation
risk factor and one violation severity level and that the ranges of
penalties for violations will be based on the sanctions table and
supporting penalty determination process described in the Commission-
approved NERC Sanctions Guideline. The NOPR proposed to approve the
violation risk factors and violation severity levels for the
Requirements of WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 as
consistent with the Commission's established guidelines.\48\ The
Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed violation
risk factors and violation severity levels. Accordingly, the Commission
approves the violation risk factors and violation severity levels for
the requirements of WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 135 FERC ]
61,166 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Removal of Terms From NERC Glossary

    56. The petition states that proposed WECC regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 replaces the terms ``Spinning Reserve'' with
``Operating Reserve-Spinning'' and ``Non-Spinning Reserve'' with
``Operating Reserve-Supplemental'' to ensure comparable treatment of
demand-side management with conventional generation, or any other
technology, and to allow demand-side management to be considered as a
resource for contingency reserve. The petition states that Operating
Reserve-Spinning and Operating Reserve-Supplemental have glossary
definitions that are inclusive of demand-side management, including
controllable load. Accordingly, the petition seeks revision of the NERC
Glossary to remove the two WECC Regional Definitions,

Non-Spinning Reserve and Spinning Reserve. With the removal of Non-
Spinning Reserve and Spinning Reserve from the proposed WECC regional
Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2, the NOPR proposed to approve
removal of those WECC Regional Definitions from the NERC Glossary. The
Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed revisions to
the NERC Glossary. Accordingly, the Commission approves the proposed
revisions to the NERC Glossary.

H. Implementation Plan and Effective Date

    57. The petition proposes that WECC regional Reliability Standard
BAL-002-WECC-2 become effective on the first day of the third quarter
following applicable regulatory approval. The petition states that the
proposed WECC regional Reliability Standard may require execution of
contracts by some applicable entities before implementation can occur,
and the proposed effective date allows time for applicable entities to
finalize needed contracts. The petition also proposes to retire the
currently-effective WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-0 on
the proposed effective date.
    58. The NOPR proposed to approve the petition's implementation plan
and effective date for the WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-
WECC-2. The Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed
implementation plan and effective date. Accordingly, the Commission
approves the implementation plan and effective date for WECC regional
Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2.

III. Information Collection Statement

    59. The following collection of information contained in this Final
Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\49\
OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\50\ 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 a
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 Commission solicited comments on the need for
and the purpose of the information contained in regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 and the corresponding burden to implement the
regional Reliability Standard. The Commission received comments on
specific requirements in the regional Reliability Standard, which we
address in this Final Rule. However, the Commission did not receive any
comments on our reporting burden estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \50\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. Public Reporting Burden: The burden and cost estimates below
are based on the need for applicable entities to revise documentation,
already required by the current WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-
STD-002-0, to reflect certain changes made in WECC regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2. Our estimates are based on the NERC Compliance
Registry as of May 30, 2013, which indicates that 36 balancing
authorities and reserve sharing groups are registered within WECC.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                                                     Number of        annual      Average burden     Estimated
      Improved requirement             Year         respondents    responses per     hours  per    total annual
                                                       \51\         respondent       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)                                          (2)             (3)     (1)*(2)*(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update Existing Documentation to               1              36               1          \52\ 1              36
 Conform with Proposed Regional
 Reliability Standard...........
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ NERC balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups are responsible for the improved requirement.
  Further, if a single entity is registered as both a balancing authority and reserve sharing group, that entity
  is counted as one unique entity.
\52\ The Commission bases the hourly reporting burden on the time for an engineer to implement the requirements
  of the final rule.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours for Collection: (Compliance/
Documentation) = 36 hours
    Costs to Comply with PRA:
     Year 1: $2,160.
     Year 2 and ongoing: $0.
    61. Year 1 costs include updating existing documentation, already
required by the current WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-STD-002-
0, to reflect changes in WECC regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-
WECC-2. For the burden category above, the cost is $60/hour (salary
plus benefits) for an engineer.\53\ The estimated breakdown of annual
cost is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Labor rates from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). Loaded costs are BLS rates
divided by 0.703 and rounded to the nearest dollar (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Year 1
     Update Existing Documentation to Conform with Proposed
Regional Reliability Standard: 36 entities * (1 hours/response * $60/
hour) = $2,160.
    Title: FERC-725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards-WECC (Western
Electric Coordinating Council)
    Action: Proposed Collection of Information
    OMB Control No: 1902-0246
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and not-for-profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: One-time.
    Necessity of the Information: Regional Reliability Standard BAL-
002-WECC-2 implements the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards
to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System.
Specifically, the regional Reliability Standard ensures that balancing
authorities and reserve sharing groups in the WECC Region have the
quantity and types of contingency reserve required to ensure
reliability under normal and abnormal conditions.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed regional Reliability
Standard BAL-002-WECC-2 and made a determination that its action is
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. The Commission has
assured itself, by means of its internal review,

that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information requirements.
    62. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: Data<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].

IV. Environmental Analysis

    63. 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.\54\ 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.\55\ The actions directed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \55\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    64. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \56\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2
applies to 36 registered balancing authorities and reserve sharing
groups in the NERC Compliance Registry. Comparison of the NERC
Compliance Registry with data submitted to the Energy Information
Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that, of the 36 registered
balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups, two may qualify as
small entities.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \57\ The 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 Small Business Administration, an
electric utility is defined as ``small'' if, including its
affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission,
and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total
electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4
million megawatt hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. The Commission estimates that, on average, each of the two
affected small entities will have an estimated cost of $60 in Year 1
and no further ongoing costs. These figures are based on information
collection costs plus additional costs for compliance. The Commission
does not consider this to be a significant economic impact for small
entities because it should not represent a significant percentage of
the small entities' operating budgets. The Commission solicited
comments concerning is proposed Regulatory Flexibility Act
certification and did not receive any comments. Accordingly, the
Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VI. Document Availability

    66. 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 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    67. 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.
    68. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    69. These regulations are effective January 28, 2014. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28626 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 195)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62331-62333]
[DOCID:fr08oc10-7]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0958; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-188-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-
9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F Airplanes; and DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40,
and DC-9-50 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require installing new
in-line fuses for the fuel level float switch and new in-line fuses for
the pressure switch, as applicable, and changing the wiring. The
proposed actions would affect the left and right wing forward spars,
center wing forward spar, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft
auxiliary fuel tank, as applicable. This proposed AD was prompted by
fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing
this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel
tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 22,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0958;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-188-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    An investigation conducted by the airplane manufacturer has
revealed that fuel level float switch wires located on the left and
right wing forward spars, the center tank forward spar, and the forward
and aft auxiliary fuel tanks, and pressure switch wires located on the

forward and aft auxiliary fuel tanks, are routed in the same bundles as
power wires. If a short circuit between a fuel level float or pressure
switch wire and a power wire occurs, an over-current can cause
excessive temperature in the fuel level float or pressure switch wire,
resulting in damage, and could become a potential ignition source.
Adding an in-line fuse as a self-contained component in each fuel level
float and pressure switch circuit will minimize the possibility of
excessive temperatures in the fuel level float or pressure switch
wires. If a short circuit between a fuel level float or pressure switch
and a power wire occurs, the result could be a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-217, Revision 1, dated
August 12, 2010. The service bulletin describes procedures for
installing the in-line fuses of the fuel level float switch, in-line
fuses of the pressure switch, and changing the wiring, as applicable,
on the left and right wing forward spars, center wing forward spar,
forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel tank, as
applicable. The service bulletin also describes procedures for changing
certain wiring.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 275 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation....................  Up to 17 work-      Between $289 and    Between $1,734 and  Between $476,850
                                   hours x $85 per     $1,449 \1\.         $2,894 \1\.         and $795,850 \1\.
                                   hour = Up to
                                   $1,445 \1\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on airplane group identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-217, Revision 1, dated August 12,
  2010.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2010-0958; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-188-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 22, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-9-
14, DC-9-15, DC-9-15F, DC-9-21, DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C),
DC-9-32F, DC-9-32F (C-9A), DC-9-32F (C9-B), DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-
34F, DC-9-41, and DC-9-51 airplanes, certificated in any category;
as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-217, Revision 1,
dated August 12, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of
ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Installation

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD:
Install new in-line fuses for the fuel level float switch and new
in-line fuses for the pressure switch, as applicable; and change the
wiring; on the left and right wing forward spars, center wing
forward

spar, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel tank, as
applicable; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-217, Revision 1, dated August 12,
2010.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-217, dated December
1, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 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

    (j) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles
ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (k) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 1, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-25374 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31602-31603]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13462]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2117-000.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: FERC Audit Recommended Filing: Off System Services to be
effective 7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110520-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2118-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: REX Cost and Revenue Study to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110520-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2119-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Hardy Storage Company submits its Annual Penalty
Revenue Crediting Report for the period April 1, 2010 through March 31,
2011.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110520-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2120-000.
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: TW Baseline Tariff Compliance Filing--Maps to be
effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110520-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2121-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: 20110523 Aron Non-Conforming/Negotiated Rate PDD to be
effective 6/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110523-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2122-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Limited Waiver of Northern Natural Gas.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110523-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2123-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.
    Description: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits
tariff filing per 154.204: TSA Update (Augustus Assignment) to be
effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110523-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 06, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified Comment
Date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 24, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13462 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P