72664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1 16 U.S.C. 824o. 

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

4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on 

reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). 

3Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 1330–1417. 

exemption from registration under 

Section 17A is a small entity. 

VIII. Statutory Authority and Text of 

the Rules and Amendments 

The amendments described in this 

release are being adopted under the 

authority set forth in Sections 18, 19 

and 28 of the Securities Act; Sections 

12(h), 23(a) and 36 of the Exchange Act; 

and Section 304(d) of the TIA. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 230, 

240 and 260 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Securities. 

Text of the Rules and Amendments 

■ Accordingly, we are temporarily 

amending 17 CFR parts 230, 240, and 

260 as follows and the expiration date 

for the temporary rules published 

January 22, 2009 (74 FR 3967), and 

extended to November 30, 2010, is 

further extended from November 30, 

2010, to July 16, 2011. 

PART 230—GENERAL RULES AND 

REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 

1933 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 230 

continues to read, in part, as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77c, 77d, 77f, 

77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z–3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 

78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d), 

78mm, 80a–8, 80a–24, 80a–28, 80a–29, 80a– 

30, and 80a–37, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

§§ 230.146 and 230.239T [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 230.146(c)T, in the last 

sentence, remove the words ‘‘November 

30, 2010’’ and add, in their place, the 

words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’. 

■ 3. In § 230.239T(e), remove the words 

‘‘November 30, 2010’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’. 

PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND 

REGULATIONS, SECURITIES 

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

■ 4. The authority citation for Part 240 

continues to read, in part, as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 

77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 

77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 

78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o– 

4, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u–5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 

78mm, 80a–20, 80a–23, 80a–29, 80a–37, 80b– 

3, 80b–4, 80b–11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 

U.S.C. 1350; and 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3) unless 

otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

§§ 240.12a–10T and 240.12h–1 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 240.12a–10T(b), remove the 

words ‘‘November 30, 2010’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’. 

■ 6. In § 240.12h–1(h)T, in the last 

sentence, remove the words ‘‘November 

30, 2010’’ and add, in their place, the 

words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’. 

PART 260—GENERAL RULES AND 

REGULATIONS, TRUST INDENTURE 

ACT OF 1939 

■ 7. The authority citation for Part 260 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 

77sss, 78ll(d), 80b–3, 80b–4, and 80b–11. 

§ 260.4d–11T [Amended] 

■ 8. In § 260.4d–11T, in the last 

sentence, remove the words ‘‘November 

30, 2010’’ and add, in their place, the 

words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’. 

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

By the Commission. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29702 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM09–25–000; Order No. 742] 

System Personnel Training Reliability 

Standards 

Issued November 18, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act, the Commission 

approves two Personnel Performance, 

Training and Qualifications (PER) 

Reliability Standards, PER–004–2 

(Reliability Coordination—Staffing) and 

PER–005–1 (System Personnel 

Training), submitted to the Commission 

for approval by the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation, the 

Electric Reliability Organization 

certified by the Commission. The 

approved Reliability Standards require 

reliability coordinators, balancing 

authorities, and transmission operators 

to establish a training program for their 

system operators, verify each of their 

system operators’ capability to perform 

tasks, and provide emergency 

operations training to every system 

operator. The Commission also 

approves NERC’s proposal to retire two 

existing PER Reliability Standards that 

are replaced by the standards approved 

in this Final Rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will 

become effective January 25, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karin L. Larson (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8236. Kenneth U. Hubona 

(Technical Information), Office of 

Electric Reliability, Division of 

Reliability Standards, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 1800 Dual 

Highway, Suite 201, Hagerstown, MD 

21740, (301) 665–1608. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before 

Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, 

Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. 

Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. 

LaFleur. 

1. Under section 215 of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission 

approves two Personnel Performance, 

Training and Qualifications (PER) 

Reliability Standards, PER–004–2 

(Reliability Coordination—Staffing) and 

PER–005–1 (System Personnel 

Training), submitted to the Commission 

for approval by the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), 

the Electric Reliability Organization 

(ERO) certified by the Commission. The 

approved Reliability Standards require 

reliability coordinators, balancing 

authorities, and transmission operators 

to establish a training program for their 

system operators, verify each of their 

system operators’ capability to perform 

tasks, and provide emergency 

operations training to every system 

operator. The Commission also 

approves NERC’s proposal to retire two 

existing PER Reliability Standards that 

are replaced by the standards approved 

in this Final Rule. 

I. Background 

2. On March 16, 2007, the 

Commission issued Order No. 693, 

approving 83 of the 107 Reliability 

Standards filed by NERC,2 including the 

four PER Reliability Standards: PER– 

001–0, PER–002–0, PER–003–0, and 

PER–004–1.3 In addition, in Order No. 

693, under section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, 

the Commission directed NERC to 

develop modifications to the PER 

Reliability Standards to address certain 

issues identified by the Commission. At 

issue in the immediate proceeding are 

two new PER Reliability Standards that 

would replace the currently effective 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72665 

4 Id. P 1331. 

5Reliability Standard PER–002–0. 

6Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 1393. 

7 Id. P 1394. 

8 Id. P 1417. 

9North American Electric Reliability Corp., Sept. 

30, 2009 Petition for Approval of Proposed 

Reliability Standards Regarding System Personnel 

Training (NERC Petition). The two PER Reliability 

Standards are included as Exhibit A to NERC’s 

Petition. In addition, pursuant to section 40.3 of the 

Commission’s regulations, all Commissionapproved Reliability Standards are available on 

NERC’s Web site at http://www.nerc.com/ 

page.php?cid=2|20. See 18 CFR. 40.3. 

10NERC’s Petition addresses only the directives 

in Order No. 693 related to existing Reliability 

Standard PER–002–0, not the directives related to 

PER–004–1. See NERC Petition at 27. 

11NERC Petition at 5. 

12Reliability Standard PER–005–1, Section A.3 

(Purpose). 

13The responsible entities subject to PER–005–1 

include: Reliability coordinators, balancing 

authorities and transmission operators as those 

entities are defined in the Glossary of Terms Used 

in NERC Reliability Standards, April 20, 2010, 

available at http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/ 

rs/Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf. 

14NERC Petition at 8–9. 

Reliability Standards PER–002–0 

(Operating Personnel Training) and 

PER–004–1 (Reliability Coordination— 

Staffing). 

Currently Effective Reliability Standard 

PER–002–0 

3. Currently effective Reliability 

Standard PER–002–0 requires each 

transmission operator and balancing 

authority to be staffed with adequately 

trained operating personnel.4

Specifically, PER–002–0: (1) Directs 

each transmission operator and 

balancing authority to have a training 

program for all operating personnel who 

occupy positions that either have 

primary responsibility, directly or 

through communication with others, for 

the real-time operation of the BulkPower System or who are directly 

responsible for complying with the 

NERC Reliability Standards; (2) lists 

criteria that must be met by the training 

program; and (3) requires that operating 

personnel receive at least five days of 

training in emergency operations each 

year using realistic simulations.5

4. In Order No. 693, the Commission 

directed NERC, pursuant to section 

215(d)(5) of the FPA, to develop the 

following modifications to PER–002–0: 

(1) Identify the expectations of the 

training for each job function; (2) 

develop training programs tailored to 

each job function with consideration of 

the individual training needs of the 

personnel; (3) expand the applicability 

of the training requirements to include: 

reliability coordinators, local 

transmission control center operator 

personnel, generator operators centrallylocated at a generation control center 

with a direct impact on the reliable 

operation of the Bulk-Power System, 

and operations planning and operations 

support staff who carry out outage 

planning and assessments and those 

who develop system operating limits 

(SOL), interconnection reliability 

operating limits (IROL), or operating 

nomograms for real-time operations; (4) 

use a systematic approach to training 

methodology for developing new 

training programs; and (5) include the 

use of simulators by reliability 

coordinators, transmission operators, 

and balancing authorities that have 

operational control over a significant 

portion of load and generation.6

5. In Order No. 693, the Commission 

also directed the ERO to determine 

whether it is feasible to develop 

meaningful performance metrics 

associated with the effectiveness of a 

training program required by currently 

effective Reliability Standard PER–002– 

0 and to consider whether personnel 

who support Energy Management 

System (EMS) applications should be 

included in mandatory training 

pursuant to the Reliability Standard.7

Currently Effective Reliability Standard 

PER–004–1 

6. In Order No. 693, the Commission 

also approved Reliability Standard PER– 

004–1.8 This Reliability Standard 

requires each reliability coordinator to 

be staffed with adequately trained, 

NERC-certified operators, 24 hours a 

day, seven days a week. Further, PER– 

004–1 requires reliability coordinator 

operating personnel to have a 

comprehensive understanding of the 

area of the Bulk-Power System for 

which they are responsible. 

NERC Petition 

7. In a September 30, 2009 filing 

(NERC Petition),9 NERC requests 

Commission approval of proposed 

Reliability Standards PER–005–1 

(System Personnel Training) and PER– 

004–2 (Reliability Coordination— 

Staffing), which were developed in 

response to the Commission’s directives 

in Order No. 693 regarding currently 

effective Reliability Standard PER–002– 

0.10 NERC seeks to concurrently retire 

currently effective Reliability Standards 

PER–002–0 and PER–004–1 upon the 

effective date of the two new Reliability 

Standards. 

8. NERC states that the proposed 

Reliability Standards ‘‘are a significant 

improvement over the existing 

Reliability Standards’’ and recommends 

Commission approval of the standards 

as a ‘‘significant step in strengthening 

the quality of operator training programs 

as necessary for the reliability of the 

[B]ulk-[P]ower [S]ystem.’’ 11

Reliability Standard PER–005–1 

9. The stated purpose of Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1 is to ensure system 

operators performing real-time, 

reliability-related tasks on the North 

American bulk electric system are 

competent to perform those reliabilityrelated tasks.12 Reliability Standard 

PER–005–1 applies to reliability 

coordinators, balancing authorities, and 

transmission operators.13 Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1 contains three 

main requirements: 

• Requirement R1 mandates the use of a 

systematic approach to training for both new 

and existing training programs. The 

requirement further requires applicable 

entities to create a company-specific, 

reliability-related task list relevant to BulkPower System operation and to design and 

develop learning objectives and training 

materials based on the task list performed by 

its System Operators each calendar year. 

Finally, the requirement mandates the 

training be delivered and the training 

program be evaluated on at least an annual 

basis to assess its effectiveness. 

• Requirement R2 requires the verification 

of a System Operator’s ability to perform the 

tasks identified in Requirement R1. The 

requirement also mandates re-verification of 

a System Operator’s ability to perform the 

tasks within a specified time period when 

program content is modified. 

• Requirement R3 identifies the number of 

hours of emergency operations training (at 

least 32 hours) that a System Operator is 

required to obtain every twelve months. The 

requirement further identifies those entities 

required to use simulation technology such 

as a simulator, virtual technology, or other 

technology in their emergency operations 

training programs.14

Proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1 is a new Reliability Standard that 

is intended to supersede all of currently 

effective Reliability Standard PER–002– 

0 as well as Requirements R2, R3, and 

R4 of currently effective Reliability 

Standard PER–004–1. 

Proposed Reliability Standard 

PER–004–2 

10. Proposed Reliability Standard 

PER–004–2 modifies PER–004–1 by 

deleting Requirements R2, R3, and R4, 

as these three Requirements are 

incorporated into proposed PER–005–1. 

Proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

004–2 simply carries forward, 

unchanged, the remaining provisions 

from currently effective PER–004–1, 

including the associated violation risk 

factor and violation severity level 

assignments. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

15System Personnel Training Reliability 

Standards, 75 FR 35689 (June 17, 2010), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,661 (2010) (NOPR). 

16See comments of APPA, Dominion, EEI, IESO, 

NERC, NRECA, PG&E, Platte River, Wisconsin 

Electric, and WECC. 

17 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2). 

18U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, 

Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the 

United States and Canada: Causes and 

Recommendations, (April 2004) (Blackout Report), 

available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/ 

indus-act/blackout.asp. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

11. On June 17, 2010, the Commission 

issued its Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to 

approve the two proposed PER 

Reliability Standards, PER–004–2 and 

PER–005–1 (and to retire the two 

superseded standards, PER–002–0 and 

PER–004–1).15 With respect to 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1, the 

NOPR proposed to direct NERC to: (1) 

Modify PER–005–1 to explicitly require 

training for local transmission control 

center personnel, and (2) to evaluate the 

feasibility of developing meaningful 

performance metrics to evaluate the 

effectiveness of PER–005–1. In addition, 

in the NOPR, the Commission sought 

clarification from NERC and/or industry 

comments on several specific aspects of 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1, including: (1) Whether three 

specific training requirements are 

carried over from PER–004–1 to PER– 

005–1 and are enforceable as part of the 

systematic approach to training 

umbrella; (2) whether PER–005–1, R1.2, 

through the systematic approach to 

training, adequately requires entities to 

develop training programs tailored to 

each job function with consideration of 

the individual training needs of the 

personnel; (3) whether PER–005–1, R3.1 

requires the use of simulators specific to 

an operator’s own system and if not, 

whether it is feasible or practical to 

mandate the use of simulators that are 

specific to the operator’s system; (4) 

whether the proposed two- and threeyear lead time prior to certain 

Requirements in PER–005–1 become 

effective are necessary and the 

feasibility of staggering the retirement of 

currently effective Reliability Standards 

PER–002–0 and PER–004–1; and (5) 

whether it is feasible for NERC to 

complete the standards development 

project to expand applicability of PER– 

005 to include certain generator 

operators and operations planning and 

operations support staff by fourth 

quarter 2011. The Commission also 

proposed to approve NERC’s proposed 

retirement of currently effective 

Reliability Standards, PER–002–0 and 

PER–004–1, which will be superseded 

by the two new standards. 

12. In response to the NOPR, 

comments were filed by 28 interested 

parties. These comments assisted us in 

the evaluation of NERC’s proposal. In 

the discussion below, we address the 

issues raised by these comments. 

Appendix A to this Final Rule lists the 

entities that filed comments on the 

NOPR. 

II. Discussion 

A. Approval of PER–004–2 and PER– 

005–1 

13. In the NOPR, the Commission 

proposed to approve the two PER 

Reliability Standards filed by NERC in 

this proceeding as just, reasonable, not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential, 

and in the public interest. The 

Commission stated that proposed 

Reliability Standards PER–005–1 and 

PER–004–2 represent an improvement 

in training requirements. 

Comments 

14. Many commenters support 

approving the two proposed Reliability 

Standards PER–004–2 and PER–005– 

1.16 NERC reiterates in its comments 

that implementation of Reliability 

Standards PER–005–1 and PER–004–2 

will achieve a significant improvement 

in the reliability of the Bulk-Power 

System and, therefore, it is supportive of 

the Commission’s proposal to approve 

the two standards. APPA states that the 

proposed PER standards strike the right 

balance among costs, flexibility and 

performance, and that PER–005–1 and 

PER–004–2 should be approved without 

modification. Dominion notes that the 

implementation of the more stringent 

requirements of PER–005–1, including 

the adoption of a systematic approach to 

training for new and existing system 

operator training programs, recognizes 

the criticality of such training and 

contains a logical and reasonable 

approach to providing the appropriate 

personnel with the necessary training. 

15. EEI states that if the Reliability 

Standards are approved, compliance 

with both PER–004–2 and PER–005–1 

will support the reliability of the BulkPower System by measuring 

competence against a list of specific task 

requirements. EEI also comments that 

by implementing training requirements 

that test specific competencies, the 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1 provides greater clarity, thus 

improving its enforceability. No 

commenter objects to the approval of 

the two training Reliability Standards. 

Commission Determination 

16. The Commission adopts the NOPR 

proposal and approves Reliability 

Standard PER–004–2 and PER–005–1 as 

just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in 

the public interest.17 By assigning a 

significant amount of structure to the 

training programs for the principal 

operators of the Bulk-Power System, 

namely reliability coordinators, 

balancing authorities and transmission 

operators, the two proposed Reliability 

Standards will enhance the reliability of 

the Bulk-Power System. Moreover, the 

two proposed Reliability Standards 

represent a step forward in 

implementing a key recommendation 

from the 2003 Blackout Report 18 by 

addressing an identified gap where 

operations personnel were not 

adequately trained to maintain reliable 

operation under emergency conditions. 

17. The Commission is not directing 

any modifications to the substantive 

requirements of the two new Reliability 

Standards, PER–005–1 or PER–004–2. 

Nevertheless, as discussed in greater 

detail below, the Commission has 

several concerns regarding certain 

training issues. To address these 

concerns, and as discussed in greater 

detail below, the Commission is issuing 

directives that the ERO: (1) Consider the 

necessity of developing an 

implementation plan for entities that 

become subject to PER–005–1, 

Requirement R3.1 after Requirement 

R3.1 is in effect, and (2) develop a 

Reliability Standard, through the ERO’s 

Reliability Standards development 

process, conducted pursuant to its 

Standard Processes Manual, establishing 

training requirements for local 

transmission control center operator 

personnel. 

B. Implementation Timeline 

18. In the NOPR, the Commission 

expressed concern about NERC’s 

proposed use of staggered effective dates 

for the two proposed Reliability 

Standards, which Reliability Standards 

modify currently effective standards. 

The Commission questioned whether 

staggered effective dates could create a 

gap in compliance and enforceability. 

Specifically, NERC proposed to make 

the various requirements in PER–005–1 

mandatory and enforceable in three 

stages over a three-year period. The 

Commission also questioned the need 

for the proposed two- and three-year 

lead times before certain Requirements 

in PER–005–1 become mandatory and 

enforceable. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72667 

19See comments submitted by BPA, ITC, 

Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota, NV Energy, 

NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte River, Portland, and 

WECC. 

20See comments submitted by Minnesota Power, 

Montana-Dakota, PG&E, and WECC. 

21See NERC Glossary of Terms at http:// 

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

Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf. 

22 ‘‘Regulatory approval’’ for these two Reliability 

Standards refers to approval by the Commission in 

a final rule. The date of the Commission’s 

regulatory approval is not the date that the final 

rule is issued by the Commission, rather, in this 

case, it is 60 days after the date the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

23See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 

130 FERC ¶ 61,271, at P 15 (2010) (approving the 

Implementation Plan for Newly Identified Cyber 

Assets). 

24See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,242 at P 1382. 

Comments 

19. NERC’s comments clarify the 

proposed effective dates for each of the 

new Requirements in PER–005–1 and 

PER–004–2 as well as the corresponding 

retirement dates of the currently 

effective Requirements in PER–002–0 

and PER–004–1. NERC included in its 

comments a table that specifies the 

retirement and effective date for each 

Requirement in each of the affected 

Reliability Standards, specifically, 

currently effective PER–002–0 and PER– 

004–1 and proposed Reliability 

Standards PER–004–2 and PER–005–1. 

This table is reproduced in Appendix B 

of this Final Rule. Further, NERC 

provides justification for the proposed 

two- and three-year lead times for the 

effective date for some of the proposed 

Requirements in PER–005–1. 

Specifically, NERC states that the 24- 

month implementation timeframe of 

proposed PER–005–1, Requirements R1 

and R2 allows flexibility in developing 

and implementing the training programs 

that use a systematic approach to 

training, and is structured and tailored 

to the functions that each entity 

performs in operating the Bulk-Power 

System. Additionally, NERC explains 

that the 36-month implementation 

timeframe for Requirement R3.1 in the 

proposed standard PER–005–1 allows 

entities with simulation technology 

sufficient time to integrate the use of 

this technology as a core component of 

those programs going forward and 

allows entities without simulation 

technology the needed time to secure 

and integrate simulation technology. 

Finally, NERC states that it reviewed the 

staggered effective/retirement dates and 

did not find any overlaps or gaps. 

20. The majority of the commenters 

generally support NERC’s proposed 

effective and retirement dates.19 Many 

of these commenters state that if the 

Commission rejects the use of staggered 

effective and retirement dates, then in 

the alternative, the Commission should 

impose a uniform effective date that is 

the first day of the first calendar quarter, 

36 months after FERC approval.20 BGE, 

GSOC and GTC, KCP&L, SPP, and 

Westar generally support eliminating 

the staggered effective dates and instead 

setting this uniform effective/retirement 

date. 

21. EEI raises a concern regarding the 

effective date for Reliability Standard 

PER–005–1, Requirement 3.1. 

Specifically, EEI states that although 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1 

addresses lead times for compliance 

based on regulator approval of the 

standards, it does not address the 

situation where Requirement 3.1 is not 

applicable to certain entities at the time 

of the regulatory effective date of the 

standard, but later becomes applicable 

to those entities. Specifically, with 

respect to PER–005–1, Requirement 

R3.1, which requires simulator training 

for entities with established 

interconnection reliability operating 

limits (IROLs),21 EEI states that if an 

entity does not have established IROLs 

when the Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1 becomes effective, but later due 

to system changes an IROL is invoked, 

the standard does not specify when the 

requirements for simulation training 

(Requirement R3.1) would be mandatory 

and enforceable for such an entity. EEI 

states that because entities with 

established IROLs would initially have 

36 months to comply with the 

provisions of Requirement R3.1; i.e., to 

develop simulation training, that the 

same 36 month compliance lead time 

should also be afforded to all entities 

with future established IROLs. EEI 

requests that the Commission direct 

NERC to modify the effective date 

specified in Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1, section 5.1 to grant a 36-month 

lead time for entities with newly 

established IROLs or operating guides to 

be compliant with Requirement 3.1. 

Commission Determination 

22. The Commission finds that the 

proposed staggered implementation 

schedule for PER–005–1 and PER–004– 

2 and the corresponding retirement 

schedule for PER–002–0 and PER–004– 

1 strikes a reasonable balance between 

the need for timely reform and the 

needs of the entities that will be subject 

to PER–005–1 to develop and 

implement training programs utilizing a 

systematic approach to training and use 

of simulators as a training tool. The 

effective and retirement date table 

provided by NERC in its comments and 

incorporated herein as Appendix B 

demonstrates that there are no apparent 

overlaps or gaps between the retirement 

of PER–002–0 and PER–004–1 and the 

effectiveness of the requirements in the 

new Reliability Standards, PER–005–1 

and PER–004–2. 

23. The Commission finds that the 

commenters that advocate for a uniform 

effective date of 36-months have not 

adequately justified such a lengthy lead 

time for a Reliability Standard that will 

not impose entirely new requirements. 

Rather, PER–005–1 requires applicable 

entities to build upon and improve the 

existing training programs that are in 

place under currently effective PER– 

002–0. Accordingly, as approved, PER– 

004–2 in its entirety and PER–005–1, 

Requirement R3 shall become effective 

on the first day of the first calendar 

quarter after regulatory approval.22

PER–005–1, Requirements R1, R1.1, 

R1.1.1, R1.2, R1.3, R1.4, R2, and R2.1 

shall become effective on the first day 

of the first calendar quarter, twenty-four 

months after regulatory approval. And, 

finally, PER–005–1, Requirements R3.1 

shall become effective on the first day 

of the first calendar quarter, thirty-six 

months after regulatory approval. 

24. With respect to EEI’s comment 

regarding the effective date for entities 

that may become, in the future, subject 

to the simulator training requirement in 

PER–005–1, R3.1, the Commission 

believes that this issue should be 

considered by the ERO. We note that, 

with respect to the Critical 

Infrastructure Protection (CIP) 

Reliability Standards, NERC has 

developed a separate implementation 

plan that essentially gives responsible 

entities some lead time before newly 

acquired assets must be in compliance 

with the effective CIP Reliability 

Standards.23 We direct NERC to 

consider the necessity of developing a 

similar implementation plan with 

respect to PER–005–1, Requirement 

R3.1. 

C. Systematic Approach to Training 

25. A systematic approach to training 

is a widely-accepted methodology that 

ensures training is efficiently and 

effectively conducted and is directly 

related to the needs of the position in 

question.24 To achieve training results, 

the objectives of a systematic approach 

to training include: management and 

administration of training and 

qualification programs; development 

and qualification of training staff; 

trainee entry-level requirements; 

determination of training program 

content; design and development of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72668 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

25NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs ¶ 32,601 at P 25 

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

at P 1380). 26See Reliability Standard PER–004–1, 

Requirements R3 and R4. 

27See comments of BPA, Dominion, GSOC & 

GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO Council, KCP&L, Minnesota 

Power, Montana Dakota, NV Energy, NERC, PG&E, 

Portland, Westar, and WECC. 

28See comments of BPA, GSOC & GTC, IESO, 

ISO/RTO Council, ITC, Minnesota Power, MontanaDakota, NV Energy, NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte 

River, Portland, Westar, and WECC. 

training programs; conduct of training; 

trainee examinations and evaluations; 

and training program evaluation. 

NOPR 

26. In the NOPR, the Commission 

agreed with NERC that proposed 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1, 

Requirement R1 met the Commission’s 

directive to ‘‘develop a modification to 

PER–002–2 (or a new Reliability 

Standard) that uses the systematic 

approach to training methodology.’’ 25

However, the Commission noted that 

the generic reference to systematic 

approach to training contained in 

proposed PER–005–1 Requirement R1 

raised the question of whether certain 

Order No. 693 directives and certain 

specific training requirements that are 

explicitly set forth in the currently 

effective Reliability Standards PER– 

002–0 and PER–004–1, which are to be 

retired, are fully and adequately 

captured under the systematic approach 

to training umbrella. The Commission 

questioned whether the following three 

currently effective training requirements 

from PER–002–0 and PER–004–1 are 

incorporated in proposed Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1: (i) Understanding 

of reliability coordinator area, (ii) 

continual training, and (iii) training staff 

identity and competency. In the NOPR, 

the Commission sought comment on its 

understanding of the carryover of these 

three currently enforceable compliance 

obligations. 

1. Understanding of Reliability 

Coordinator Area 

27. Currently effective Reliability 

Standard PER–004–1, Requirements R3 

and R4 provide that reliability 

coordinator operating personnel ‘‘shall 

have a comprehensive understanding of 

the Reliability Coordinator Area and 

interactions with neighboring Reliability 

Coordinator areas’’ and ‘‘shall have an 

extensive understanding of the 

Balancing Authorities, Transmission 

Operators, and Generation Operators 

within the Reliability Coordinator Area, 

including the operating staff, operating 

practices and procedures * * * .’’ 26

NERC states that these two requirements 

are supplanted by and addressed more 

fully in proposed Reliability Standard 

PER–005–1, Requirements R1 and R2. 

However, proposed Reliability Standard 

PER–005–1 does not explicitly require 

reliability coordinator operating 

personnel to have a comprehensive 

understanding of the reliability 

coordinator area or an extensive 

understanding of the balancing 

authorities, transmission operators, and 

generation operators within the 

reliability coordinator area. In order to 

clarify that these requirements are clear 

and enforceable under proposed 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1, the 

Commission sought an explanation from 

NERC and comments from the general 

public whether these existing 

requirements are enforceable under the 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1 and whether these requirements 

are clear or should be more explicit. 

Comments 

28. Most commenters agree that 

comprehensive understanding of the 

reliability coordinator area is fully 

addressed by PER–005–1, Requirements 

R1 and R2 through the use of a 

systematic approach to training.27 For 

example, Dominion supports proposed 

PER–005–1, Requirements R1 and R2 

because the requirements are clear, 

measurable, and eliminate the 

subjectivity of the phrase 

‘‘comprehensive understanding’’ that 

currently exists under the current PER– 

004–1, Requirement R3. Dominion 

believes that proper implementation of 

a systematic approach to training will 

address the Commission’s concern that 

operating personnel may not have a 

proper understanding of their system 

and interactions with neighboring 

systems without resurrecting the vague 

language in PER–004–1. However, other 

commenters, including ITC, 

MidAmerican, and SPP, state that 

because the requirement to have a 

‘‘comprehensive understanding of the 

reliability coordinator’s area’’ is not 

explicitly stated in PER–005–1, it will 

be difficult to enforce. 

29. NERC states that PER–005–1 

implements a defense-in-depth 

approach to ensure that the reliability 

coordinator’s system operators have a 

comprehensive understanding of their 

reliability coordinator area. NERC 

believes this approach ensures that 

system operators have the tools to 

effectively monitor and direct actions 

within the reliability coordinator area in 

support of the Bulk-Power System. 

NERC provides examples of how 

proposed PER–005–1 ensures that the 

reliability coordinator’s system 

operators will have detailed knowledge 

of their reliability coordinator area. 

Commission Determination 

30. Based on NERC’s explanation, the 

Commission agrees that the existing 

requirements contained in PER–004–1, 

which require reliability coordinators to 

have a comprehensive understanding of 

the reliability coordinator area and 

interactions with neighboring reliability 

coordinator areas and an extensive 

understanding of the balancing 

authorities, transmission operators, and 

generation operators within the 

reliability coordinator area, are 

adequately captured and enforceable 

under proposed Reliability Standard 

PER–005–1. 

2. Continual Training 

31. Currently effective Reliability 

Standard PER–002–0, Requirement R3.2 

explicitly mandates that ‘‘the training 

program must include a plan for the 

initial and continuing training of 

Transmission Operators and Balancing 

Authorities operating personnel.’’ In the 

NOPR, the Commission sought an 

explanation from NERC, and comment 

from the general public, whether 

continuing training is an enforceable 

requirement under proposed Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1 and whether this 

requirement is clear or should be more 

explicit. 

Comments 

32. NERC comments that continual 

training is an enforceable requirement 

under PER–005–1, Requirement R1 as a 

fundamental aspect of a systematic 

approach to training. Most commenters 

agree with NERC that continual training 

is an inherent aspect of the systematic 

approach to training.28 For example, the 

ISO/RTO Council states that PER–005– 

1 is superior to the previous continual 

training requirement and will be easily 

measured and enforced and thus does 

not need to be more explicit. 

33. KCP&L believes continuing 

training is not necessary for routine 

tasks, only non-routine. MidAmerican 

and NV Energy both argue that explicit 

language addressing continual training 

is necessary to be an enforceable 

requirement. 

Commission Determination 

34. Based on NERC’s and the majority 

of the commenters’ affirmation that 

continual training is a fundamental part 

of a systematic approach to training and 

an enforceable requirement under PER– 

005–1, we find that any systematic 

approach to training, including the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72669 

29See comments of GSOC & GTC, Minnesota 

Power, Montana Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, PG&E, 

Platte River, Portland, SPP, and Westar. 

30See comments of BGE, BPA, and MidAmerican. 

31See comments of IESO, ISO/RTO Council, ITC, 

KCP&L, NorthWestern, and Wisconsin Electric. 

32NERC Petition at 27 (quoting proposed 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1, Requirement 

R1.2). 

33See comments of BPA, GSOC & GTC, NV 

Energy, NorthWestern, PG&E, and Platte River. 

34See IRC Comments at 7. 

35 Id. 

systematic approach to training 

mandated by Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1, would entail continual training 

to refresh system operators’ knowledge 

and to cover any new tasks relevant to 

the operation of the Bulk-Power System. 

3. Training Staff Identity and 

Competency 

35. In the NOPR, the Commission 

noted that currently effective Reliability 

Standard PER–002–0, Requirement R3.4 

requires a training program in which 

‘‘[t]raining staff must be identified, and 

the staff must be competent in both 

knowledge of system operations and 

instructional capabilities.’’ The 

Commission further noted that this 

requirement is not explicitly provided 

in PER–005–1. As such, the NOPR 

sought clarification as to (i) how and 

whether a systematic approach to 

training requires training staff to be 

identified, and (ii) if not, the mechanism 

by which training staff will be identified 

and its competency ensured. The 

Commission also invited comment on 

whether this clarification should be 

made explicit so that entities clearly 

understand their compliance 

obligations. 

Comments 

36. NERC agrees with the Commission 

that PER–002–0, Requirement R3.4, 

which requires a training program in 

which training staff must be identified 

and competent in system operations and 

instructional capabilities, is an 

important requirement and proposes to 

reassess whether this requirement 

should be made more explicit in a later 

version of PER–005–1 so that entities 

can understand their compliance 

obligations. 

37. The majority of commenters agree 

that training staff identification and 

competency are inherent in a systematic 

approach to training, and that, as such, 

no modification of proposed PER–005– 

1 is necessary.29 However, some 

commenters disagree and argue that 

PER–005–1 should have an explicit 

requirement similar to Requirement 

R3.4 in PER–002–0 mandating training 

staff to be identified and be competent 

in system operations and instructional 

capabilities.30 Other commenters state 

that the systematic approach to training 

does not require training staff to be 

identified or their competency ensured, 

but argue that such a requirement is not 

necessary and potentially detrimental.31

For example, ITC believes competency 

of training staff should be determined 

by entities internally during the hiring 

process and companies should not be 

limited by a prescriptive requirement 

that does not allow for company 

discretion during the hiring process. 

Commission Determination 

38. Based on the comments received, 

the Commission concludes that the 

current requirement for each training 

program (that training staff must be 

identified and that such staff must be 

competent in both knowledge of system 

operations and instructional 

capabilities) is inherent in any 

systematic approach to training that a 

registered entity would use to meet this 

requirement, and thus is an enforceable 

component of Requirement R1 under 

the proposed standard. However, given 

the number of commenters that argue 

that it is necessary for the current 

training program requirement to be 

explicitly stated in the proposed 

training standard, we agree that NERC 

should follow through on its proposal in 

its comments to reassess whether this 

requirement should be made more 

explicit in a later version of PER– 

005–1. 

D. Training Expectations for Each Job 

Function/Tailored Training NOPR 

Proposal 

39. Proposed Reliability Standard 

PER–005–1, Requirement R1.2 mandates 

applicable entities to ‘‘design and 

develop learning objectives and training 

materials based on the task list created 

in R1.1.’’ 32 In the NOPR, the 

Commission noted that it believes that 

NERC has complied with the directive 

to require entities to identify the 

expectations of the training for each job 

function and develop training programs 

tailored to each job function with 

consideration of the individual training 

needs of their personnel. The 

Commission took the view in the NOPR 

that the systematic approach to training 

used to satisfy PER–005–1, Requirement 

R1 would assess factors such as 

educational, technical experience, and 

medical requirements that candidates 

must possess before entering a given 

training program. With the above 

understanding, the Commission 

concluded that the systematic approach 

to training methodology required in 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1, 

Requirement R1 satisfies the 

Commission’s directive for Order No. 

693 to develop a modification that 

identifies the expectations of the 

training for each job function and 

develops training programs tailored to 

each job function with consideration of 

the individual training needs of the 

personnel. In the NOPR, the 

Commission sought comment on its 

understanding that PER–005–1, 

Requirement R1.2 requires that the 

learning objectives and training 

materials be developed with 

consideration of the individual needs of 

each operator. 

Comments 

40. NERC agrees with the Commission 

that learning objectives and training 

materials are to be developed for each 

job function. NERC believes that using 

a systematic approach to training allows 

each entity to tailor its training program 

to best meet the training needs of the 

function performed by System 

Operators. 

41. A number of commenters 33 agree 

with NERC and affirm the Commission’s 

understanding that a systematic 

approach to training requires 

development of tailored training. 

NorthWestern concurs that PER–005–1 

requires the training materials to be 

tailored to the individual needs of each 

operator. For example, IESO believes 

that the systematic approach to training 

process will ensure that the necessary 

knowledge, skills and abilities are 

provided in the development of learning 

objectives and associated training 

materials. The ISO/RTO Council 

contends that PER–005 addresses 

function/task-specific training and not 

person-specific training or personal 

development. With respect to 

Requirement R1.2, the ISO/RTO Council 

interprets the Commission’s statement 

that ‘‘* * * requires that the learning 

objectives and training materials be 

developed with consideration of the 

individual needs of each operator. 

***’’ as requiring an entity to address 

the knowledge and skill gaps of 

individual system operators with 

respect to the reliability tasks they are 

expected to perform.34 The ISO/RTO 

Council supports the term ‘‘systematic 

approach to training (in lower case)’’ as 

used in the Reliability Standard because 

the lower case term provides registered 

entities flexibility in complying with the 

standard.35

42. SPP and Westar did not take a 

position on the issue; rather, they 

request that the Commission clarify 

what is meant by ‘‘consideration of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72670 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

36See U.S. Department of Energy’s Handbook, 

DOE–HDBK–1078–94, Training Program Handbook: 

A Systematic Approach to Training (August 1994), 

available at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclear

safety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1078/hdbk1078.

pdf (DOE Handbook). 

37NOPR, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 32,661 at P 32. 

38 DOE has noted that although its training 

handbooks related to the Systematic Approach to 

Training were prepared primarily for DOE nuclear 

facilities, the information can be effectively used by 

any other type of facility. See DOE Handbook, 

DOE–HDBK–1074–95 at Foreword (January 1995) 

(Alternative Systematic Approach to Training 

Handbook), available at http://www.hss.energy.gov/ 

nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1074/ 

hdb1074a.html. 

39See DOE Handbook at 1.2. The DOE Handbook 

acknowledges that many nuclear facilities already 

had effective training programs in place that 

contain many performance-based characteristics. 

Accordingly, DOE Handbook states that facilities 

with existing training programs should not discard 

such programs; rather, they should validate and 

supplement the existing training content where 

necessary using systematic methods. Id. 

40See DOE Handbook at 1.1. 

41See id. at 1.2. In developing the DOE 

Handbook, DOE noted that the handbook describes 

the more classical concept and approach to 

systematically establishing training programs. 

However, in some cases this classical approach has 

proven to be time- and labor-intensive, and 

therefore encourages users of the handbook to 

consider the variety of training options that are 

available for establishing and maintaining 

personnel training and qualification programs. DOE 

further found that blending classical and alternative 

systematic approaches to training methods often 

yields the most effective product. See DOE 

Handbook at iii (the Foreword). 

42See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,242 at P 1390. 

individual needs of each operator.’’ 

BG&E recommends that the Commission 

make more explicit the requirement to 

implement the Department of Energy 

Handbook on the systematic approach 

to training 36 as the mandatory 

standardized methodology industrywide, and expresses the view that the 

DOE Handbook is the most stringent set 

of standards available, has the longest 

track record of proven successful 

results, and is familiar to the industry. 

BG&E identifies the following 

expectations that training should 

include: (1) Customized, task-based 

training; (2) annual assessment of 

operator needs; and (3) individualized 

training on any task for which the 

trainee failed to achieve satisfactory 

standards during the annual training. 

43. One commenter, Wisconsin 

Electric, disagrees with the 

Commission’s ‘‘understanding’’ on this 

issue. Wisconsin Electric expresses 

several concerns with the following 

statement in the NOPR: 

Based on our review of the Systematic 

Approach to Training methodology used by 

the Department of Energy, we understand 

that a Systematic Approach to Training 

would assess factors such as educational, 

technical, experience, and medical 

requirements that candidates must possess 

before entering a given training program. 

With the above understanding, we believe 

that the Systematic Approach to Training 

methodology, as proposed in Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1, satisfies the 

Commission directive to develop a 

modification that identifies the expectations 

of the training for each job function and 

develops training programs tailored to each 

job function with consideration of the 

individual training needs of the personnel.37

Specifically, Wisconsin Electric is 

concerned that this would add a number 

of elements to PER–005 and would 

create confusion over the scope of the 

compliance obligation. Wisconsin 

Electric states that this language appears 

to impose the Department of Energy’s 

Systematic Approach to Training as the 

only acceptable methodology, which, in 

effect, precludes entities from adopting 

another approach. Wisconsin Electric is 

also concerned that the factors that a 

candidate must possess before entering 

a training program create a de facto 

compliance checklist that would exist 

apart from the language of the 

Reliability Standard. Wisconsin Electric 

objects to the expansion of NERC 

requirements to include assessment of 

medical condition of its personnel. 

Wisconsin Electric believes that the 

Commission should approve PER–005– 

1 as written without conditioning its 

approval on additional, unstated 

requirements. 

Commission Determination 

44. Based on NERC’s and other 

commenters’ affirmation of the 

Commission’s understanding as stated 

in the NOPR, the Commission confirms 

that Requirement R1.2 of proposed 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1 

requires that the learning objectives and 

training materials be developed with 

consideration of the individual needs of 

each operator. In response to Wisconsin 

Electric, BG&E and the ISO/RTO 

Council, the Commission clarifies that it 

is not mandating the use of the specific 

Systematic Approach to Training 

methodology used by the Department of 

Energy. However, we believe that the 

Department of Energy’s Systematic 

Approach to Training methodology as 

set forth in the DOE Handbook is a 

particularly good and relevant model to 

use. 

45. DOE’s Handbook is relevant for 

two reasons. First, it was designed to 

assist facilities, specifically nuclear 

facilities, that are within the same 

general industry as electric power 

facilities.38 Second, the DOE Handbook 

was written on the assumption that the 

user, a facility, is currently not using the 

DOE Systematic Approach to Training 

model for their training programs, 

which is very likely the case with 

respect to entities subject to PER–005– 

1.39 Thus, the DOE Handbook is 

particularly relevant to entities that 

transition to a systematic approach to 

training. We note that the DOE 

Handbook was compiled from a number 

of sources including the Institute of 

Nuclear Power Operations’ Principles of 

Training System Development as well as 

in collaboration with personnel 

representing DOE contractors and 

private industry.40 Moreover, the DOE 

Handbook provides reasonable 

flexibility when implementing a 

systematic approach to training in 

various settings.41

46. Finally, SPP and Westar request 

that the Commission clarify what is 

meant by ‘‘consideration of the 

individual needs of each operator.’’ The 

Commission provides the following 

clarification. A training plan is designed 

to prepare individuals to perform their 

jobs. More specifically, a training plan 

should address gaps between the skills 

necessary to accomplish a particular job 

task and an operator’s competency to 

carry out that task. Because of the 

emphasis on the individual, to be 

effective, a training plan must take into 

consideration the individual needs of 

the trainee, which includes the trainee’s 

education level, technical experience, 

and relevant medical requirements. 

E. Simulation Training 

47. In Order No. 693, the Commission 

directed NERC to develop a requirement 

mandating simulator training for 

reliability coordinators, transmission 

operators and balancing authorities that 

have operational control over a 

significant portion of load and 

generation. Recognizing that cost of 

simulator training is an issue, the 

Commission allowed for the use of 

simulators to be dependent on an 

entity’s role and size.42

NOPR Proposal 

48. In the NOPR, the Commission 

found that proposed Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1, Requirement R3.1 

meets this Order No. 693 directive 

regarding training using simulators. 

However, the Commission sought 

comment on the terminology in 

Requirement R3.1 which provides that 

the emergency operations training 

should use ‘‘simulation technology such 

as a simulator, virtual technology, or 

other technology that replicates the 

operational behavior of the BES during 

normal and emergency conditions.’’ 

Specifically, the NOPR asked NERC to 

clarify: (i) Whether the language in R3.1, 

‘‘replicates the operational behavior of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72671 

43See comments of APPA, BPA, EEI, GSOC & 

GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L, 

MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota, 

NRECA, NV Energy, NERC, NorthWestern, PG&E, 

Platte River, Portland, SPP, and Westar. 

44See comments of APPA, EEI, IESO, ISO/RTO 

Council, NRECA, Northwestern, PG&E, Platte River, 

Portland, SPP, and Westar. 

45See comments of EEI, IESO, KCP&L, Minnesota 

Power, Montana-Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, and 

PG&E. 

46See comments of APPA, EEI, ISO/RTO Council, 

ITC, KCP&L, MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, 

Montana-Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, 

NorthWestern, Platte River, Portland, and SPP. 47NERC Comments at 14. 

the BES,’’ requires the use of simulators 

specific to an operator’s own system; (ii) 

if not, whether operators trained on 

simulators that replicate systems other 

than their own will be adequately 

trained to respond to emergency 

conditions on their own system; and 

(iii) whether it is feasible or practicable 

(including cost considerations) to 

require use of simulators that 

realistically replicate the entity’s own 

topology and operating conditions; i.e., 

to require ‘‘custom’’ simulators. 

Comments 

49. NERC and all others who 

commented on the simulator training 

issue agree that PER–005–1, 

Requirement R3.1, does not require the 

use of custom simulators.43 NERC, and 

other commenters,44 state that 

Requirement R3.1 requires a simulator 

to replicate the operational behavioral 

characteristics of the bulk electric 

system through the use of simulation 

technology. Commenters argue that the 

purpose of simulators is to train the 

operator in principles that can be 

applied to any system. Specifically, 

NRECA explains that the intent of PER– 

005–1, Requirement R3.1 is not to 

require simulators that replicate every 

aspect of an entity’s own topology and 

operating conditions. Rather, the intent 

is to replicate the operational behavioral 

characteristics of the bulk electric 

system through the use of more 

generalized simulation technology. 

50. All commenters, except for BPA, 

agree that the simulator training 

requirement should not require custom 

simulators. Some commenters argue that 

custom simulators are not necessary.45

These commenters argue that it is the 

understanding of situational conditions 

and the response to them that is the 

hallmark of successful operator training, 

and such training does not require the 

use of simulators specific to an 

operator’s own system. 

51. For example, NRECA states that it 

is an understanding of the situational 

conditions and the response to them 

that is the key to successful operator 

training, and those do not require the 

use of simulators specific to an 

operator’s own system. NRECA further 

described that simulation of operational 

scenarios such as: frequency response of 

generators, VAR flow from high voltage 

to low voltage, and restoration load 

pick-up and the potential for underfrequency tripping, are concepts 

common to all systems, noting that a 

simulator can address and train on these 

issues irrespective of individual system 

characteristics. Minnesota Power and 

Montana Dakota explain that, in general, 

elements of the bulk electric system 

exhibit behaviors based upon the 

characteristics of each element, not 

upon their specific location in a 

particular system. They posit that it is 

the understanding of the situational 

conditions and the response to them 

that is the key to successful operator 

training and that understanding does 

not require the use of simulators 

specific to an operator’s own system. 

EEI notes that the issue of custom versus 

generic simulators was discussed 

extensively by the PER–005–1 drafting 

team and argues that custom simulators 

are not necessary to properly train 

personnel. EEI urges the Commission to 

approve PER–005–1, R3.1 without 

change and to allow NERC to monitor 

the effectiveness of the simulator 

training requirement for possible gaps. 

52. Other commenters argue against 

mandating custom simulators because 

the cost of custom simulators would far 

exceed the benefit.46 APPA states that 

the additional cost of developing and 

maintaining a realistic full-scale, 

system-specific simulator for a small 

balancing authority or transmission 

operator would likely exceed the 

benefits. No commenter provided 

specific estimates of the incremental 

increase in cost of custom simulators. 

EEI, acknowledging that it does not have 

specific cost information, noted that 

accurate Bulk-Power System modeling 

and maintenance would be a significant 

cost driver. ITC states that although it 

believes that the use of system 

simulators specific to an operator’s own 

system would better prepare a system 

operator for emergency conditions, the 

cost of custom simulators could likely 

outweigh the reliability benefits to small 

operators. Portland General Electric 

estimates that purchase, implementation 

and maintenance of a system-specific 

simulator could cost several hundred 

thousand dollars in up-front costs and 

would necessitate the addition of 

engineering personnel for programming 

and ongoing maintenance. 

53. BPA, the sole commenter that 

endorses modifying PER–005–1 to 

mandate the use of custom simulators, 

notes that it uses custom simulators. 

BPA acknowledges that the cost of 

implementing and maintaining a high 

fidelity simulator is significant, but 

suggests an alternative approach of 

developing a centralized, high fidelity 

simulator that realistically replicates the 

entire interconnection that could be 

remotely accessed by entities for 

training exercises. 

54. NERC notes in its comments that 

custom simulators could be important 

in ensuring the reliability of the BES. 

NERC further states that while a high 

fidelity simulator may not be necessary 

to ensure bulk electric system 

reliability, NERC agrees that simulators 

used for training that provide a useful 

representation of the system that the 

operators work with may warrant 

further consideration in a subsequent 

version of the proposed standard.47 EEI 

appears to agree with NERC, as EEI 

urges the Commission to allow NERC to 

implement the new PER–005–1 

requirements, gather experience on their 

effectiveness, and monitor results for 

possible gaps or challenges that arise 

with experience. 

Commission Determination 

55. We affirm NERC’s and the 

industry’s understanding that PER–005– 

1, Requirement R3.1 does not require 

the use of simulators specific to an 

operator’s own system. While the 

Commission continues to feel there is 

value in using custom simulators, we 

acknowledge that NERC and industry 

have determined that it is not necessary 

at this time. However, NERC and other 

commenters state that there may be 

potential reliability benefits of some 

form of custom simulators. NERC has 

also proposed to consider custom 

simulators in a subsequent modification 

of PER–005–1. We appreciate NERC’s 

commitment to continually look at how 

reliability can be improved and 

encourage NERC and industry to 

evaluate the gained reliability in 

requiring the use of custom simulators. 

F. Local Transmission Control Center 

Operator Personnel Training 

56. In Order No. 693, the Commission 

directed NERC to expand the 

applicability of currently effective 

Reliability Standard PER–002–0 to 

include local transmission control 

center operator personnel. Order No. 

693 provided that the training should be 

tailored to the functions that local 

transmission control center operators 

perform that impact the reliable 

operation of the Bulk-Power System for 

both normal and emergency 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72672 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

48Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 1348. 

49NERC Petition at 30. 

50Reliability Standard PER–005–1, Requirement 

R1.1 (emphasis added). 

51See comments of IESO, NRECA, and NV 

Energy. 

52See comments of Associated Electric, 

Dominion, GSOC & GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO Council, 

Minnesota Power, Montana Dakota, PG&E, Portland, 

and SPP. 

53See comments of APPA and EEI. 

54Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 1347. 

operations.48 Proposed Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1, which is intended 

to supersede existing Reliability 

Standard PER–002–0, does not include 

local transmission control center 

operator personnel in the applicability 

section. Rather, proposed Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1, as drafted, is 

applicable only to the following three 

functional entities: reliability 

coordinators, balancing authorities, and 

transmission operators. NERC explained 

that its functional model lists the 

functions that a transmission operator 

performs, which includes the functions 

performed by local transmission control 

center personnel. NERC therefore 

concluded that, the Order No. 693 

directive to include formal training for 

local transmission control center 

personnel is addressed in proposed 

Reliability Standards PER–005–1 

because the transmission operator has 

the ultimate responsibility to ensure 

that its functional responsibilities are 

met, even if through other entities.49

NOPR Proposal 

57. In the NOPR, the Commission 

rejected NERC’s explanation regarding 

the failure to include local transmission 

control center operating personnel in 

the proposed training standard. The 

Commission stated in the NOPR that, 

contrary to NERC’s suggestion, under 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1, a transmission operator could 

not require a local transmission control 

center operator to receive training if that 

operator is employed by an entity other 

than a reliability coordinator, balancing 

authority, or transmission operator. The 

Commission noted that with respect to 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1, the standard requires 

transmission operators, reliability 

coordinators, and balancing authorities 

to establish a training program for the 

company-specific tasks performed by its 

System Operators.50 Thus the proposed 

standard only requires implementation 

of a training program for operators 

employed by the applicable entity’s own 

company. Accordingly, the NOPR 

proposed to direct NERC to modify 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1 to include a provision that 

explicitly addresses training for local 

transmission control centers, consistent 

with the Commission’s directive in 

Order No. 693. 

Comments 

58. NERC, and all other commenters 

that address this issue, object to the 

Commission’s proposal to direct NERC 

to expand the applicability of PER–005– 

1 to explicitly include local 

transmission control center personnel. 

Some commenters agree with NERC’s 

position, stated in its Petition, that the 

local transmission control center 

operators will receive the necessary 

training without explicitly including 

them as a class subject to PER–005–1.51

These commenters are concerned that 

the Commission’s directive will require 

the creation of a new class of registered 

entities. 

59. The majority of commenters 52

state that the term ‘‘local transmission 

control center’’ is unclear and undefined 

and, without definition, is subject to 

broad interpretation. These commenters 

raise the concern that ‘‘if local 

transmission control center’’ is not 

clearly defined, it could result in 

training requirements applying to nonNERC jurisdictional persons or entities. 

Commenters appear generally to support 

a definition that would define local 

transmission control centers as those 

which have authority to make decisions 

concerning the real-time operation of 

the bulk electric system. Associated 

Electric proposes a definition of ‘‘local 

transmission control center.’’ 

60. NERC and two other 

commenters 53 suggest that training 

requirements for local transmission 

control center personnel should be 

developed in a separate project, not as 

a modification to PER–005–1. NERC 

advocates developing training standards 

for local transmission control center 

personnel in a separate standard 

because proposed PER–005–1 is focused 

on improving training requirements for 

system operators who work for the 

reliability coordinator, transmission 

operator, and balancing authority. 

Further, NERC explains that developing 

training requirements for these operator 

personnel in a separate standard will 

allow that future standard to be 

modeled after PER–005–1. Accordingly, 

NERC proposes in its comments to 

address training requirements for local 

transmission control center operator 

personnel through its standards 

development process as a separate 

standards development project, after the 

Commission issues a final order on 

PER–005–1. 

Commission Determination 

61. Some commenters question the 

original directive in Order No. 693 

requiring the development of training 

requirements for local transmission 

control center personnel by contending, 

as IESO does, that if individuals at a 

local control center are simply 

implementing directives from a 

transmission operator or a reliability 

coordinator, then such personnel should 

not be required to undergo the same 

rigorous training meant only for those 

entities who make independent 

decisions. Specifically, in Order No. 

693, the Commission stated: 

The Commission disagrees with those 

commenters who contend that, because 

operators at local control centers take 

direction from NERC-certified operators at 

the ISO or RTO, they do not need to be 

addressed by the training requirements of 

PER–002–0. Rather, as discussed above, these 

operators maintain authority to act 

independently to carry out tasks that require 

real-time operation of the Bulk-Power System 

including protecting assets, protecting 

personnel safety, adhering to regulatory 

requirements and establishing stable islands 

during system restoration.54

Thus, such comments are a collateral 

attack on Order No. 693 and will not be 

re-addressed. Issues regarding the rigor 

or type of training required for operators 

at local control centers should be vetted 

through NERC’s standards development 

process as part of the standards drafting 

and balloting, and ultimately may be 

raised in comments in any future 

Commission proceeding in which the 

proposed standard(s) or modified 

standard(s) are before the Commission. 

62. The Commission understands that 

local transmission control center 

personnel exercise control over a 

significant portion of the Bulk-Power 

System under the supervision of the 

personnel of the registered transmission 

operator. This supervision may take the 

form of directing specific step-by-step 

instructions and at other times may take 

the form of the implementation of 

predefined operating procedures. For 

example, ISO New England, Inc., PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C., and New York 

Independent System Operator, Inc., are 

registered transmission operators who 

issue operating instructions that are 

carried out by local transmission control 

centers such as PSE&G, PPL Electric 

Utilities Corp., PECO Energy Company, 

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., 

Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., 

National Grid USA, and Long Island 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72673 

55NERC Comments at 15–16. 

56Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 1394. 

57 Id. P 1379. 

58NERC Petition at 33–34. 

59See comments of APPA, IESO, ITC, KCP&L, NV 

Energy, and Platte River. 60See comments of ISO/RTO Council, 

MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota, 

PG&E, Portland, and Westar. 

Power Authority, which are not 

registered transmission operators. The 

combined peak load of these three RTOs 

is in excess of 200 gigawatts. In all 

cases, the local transmission control 

center personnel must understand what 

they are required to do in the 

performance of their duties to perform 

them effectively on a timely basis. Thus, 

omitting such local transmission control 

center personnel from the PER–005–1 

training requirements creates a 

reliability gap. The Commission 

believes that identifying these entities 

would be a valuable step in delineating 

the magnitude of that gap. 

63. NERC proposes in its comments to 

address the training of local 

transmission control center operating 

personnel in a different standard than 

PER–005–1.55 The Commission’s 

concern in the NOPR was that local 

control center operating personnel be 

trained. We leave it to NERC’s 

discretion whether to revise Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1 to accomplish this 

goal or to require local control center 

operating personnel to be trained in a 

separate Reliability Standard. The 

Commission notes that proposed 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1 

generally requires the applicable entity 

to establish and implement a training 

program, verify operators’ capabilities, 

and provide emergency training. The 

specific training, based on the 

Systematic Approach to Training 

methodology, is determined by the 

entity based on company-specific 

reliability-related tasks performed by its 

operators. As discussed above, the 

Systematic Approach to Training 

methodology is not job specific and, 

rather, provides flexibility to meet the 

needs of varying organizations and job 

skills. In its comments, NERC has said 

that it intends to generally model local 

control center operating personnel 

training on PER–005–1. Thus, we expect 

that the Reliability Standard that is 

developed will require training for local 

transmission control center that does 

not significantly diverge from the 

training requirements set forth in PER– 

005–1. If the ERO proposes a Reliability 

Standard that differs significantly from 

the approved PER–005–1 requirements, 

NERC must provide in its petition 

seeking approval of such future 

standard, adequate technical analysis 

supporting the different approach. 

64. Accordingly, we adopt our NOPR 

proposal and direct the ERO to develop 

through a separate Reliability Standards 

development project formal training 

requirements for local transmission 

control center operator personnel. 

Finally, given the numerous comments 

stating that term ‘‘local transmission 

control center’’ should be defined, we 

direct NERC to develop a definition of 

‘‘local transmission control center’’ in 

the standards development project for 

developing the training requirements for 

local transmission control center 

operator personnel. We will not 

evaluate Associated Electric’s proposed 

definition but, rather, leave it to the 

ERO to develop an appropriate 

definition that reflects the scope of local 

transmission control centers. The 

Commission will not opine on the 

appropriate definition of local 

transmission control center, as this 

definition can be addressed first using 

NERC’s Reliability Standards 

Development Procedures. 

G. Performance Metrics 

65. In Order No. 693, the Commission 

directed NERC to (1) determine 

‘‘whether it is feasible to develop 

meaningful performance metrics 

associated with the effectiveness of a 

training program * * *, and if so, 

develop such performance metrics,’’ 56

and (2) determine if quantifiable 

performance metrics can be developed 

to gauge the effectiveness of the 

Reliability Standard itself.57 In its 

Petition, NERC stated that the 

systematic approach to training 

methodology, as set forth in proposed 

Reliability Standard PER–005–1, subrequirement R1.4, requires each 

reliability coordinator, balancing 

authority and transmission operator to 

conduct an annual evaluation of the 

training program and assess whether 

system operators are receiving effective 

training. NERC concluded that this 

annual evaluation ‘‘provides a 

meaningful assessment of the training 

program’’ while ‘‘[a]n evaluation of how 

System Operators perform during 

infrequent, actual events on the system 

would not provide useful metrics on an 

ongoing basis.’’ 58 NERC also stated that 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1 is a training standard, and is not 

intended to address individual system 

operator performance apart from the 

requirements associated with the 

company-specific reliability-related 

tasks identified in Requirement R1. 

NOPR 

66. In the NOPR the Commission 

sought comment from NERC on whether 

it considered metrics to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the Reliability Standard 

itself, not just metrics to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the applicable entity’s 

training program under PER–005–1. In 

addition, the Commission sought 

comment on possible performance 

metrics that could be used to assess 

whether proposed Reliability Standard 

PER–005–1 achieves its stated purpose. 

As a result, the Commission proposed to 

direct NERC to evaluate the feasibility of 

developing meaningful performance 

metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the Reliability Standard related to 

operator training. 

Comments 

67. NERC notes that it is working to 

develop performance measures that will 

address Reliability Standards in general. 

NERC emphasizes that performance 

measures should not be embodied in the 

Reliability Standard requirements so 

there is room for flexibility in the 

development, implementation and 

modification of such measures. 

Commenters APPA, Minnesota Power, 

and Montana-Dakota agree with NERC 

that the development of metrics to 

evaluate the effectiveness of a NERC 

Reliability Standard should uniformly 

apply to all standards, not to individual 

standards. 

68. Two commenters, BG&E and 

NorthWestern, generally support the 

Commission’s proposal and request that 

any action taken to explore the 

feasibility of developing metrics provide 

for a transparent stakeholder process. 

NorthWestern identifies three methods 

for measuring performance: (1) Use 

currently monitored operating 

parameters and incident reports; (2) 

capitalize on the capabilities of certain 

entities to monitor and evaluate the 

response of subordinate entities; and (3) 

use simulation to evaluate operator 

performance against a standard set of 

operating challenges. NorthWestern 

suggests that metrics to evaluate system 

operators performing real-time tasks 

should focus on reliability-related tasks 

that have the greatest commonality 

across entities and on characteristics of 

operation that provide insight into the 

organizational and operational approach 

to reliability. 

69. Most commenters, however, state 

that performance metrics for this 

Reliability Standard are either not 

feasible 59 or not necessary because of 

the systematic approach to training 

methodology.60 For example, Platte 

River believes that the feasibility of 

developing meaningful global 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

61 Docket No. RR08–4–005 comprises NERC’s 

March 5, 2010 Violation Severity Level Compliance 

Filing submitted in response to Order No. 722 and 

an August 10, 2009 informational filing in which 

NERC proposes assigning VRFs and VSLs only to 

the main Requirements in each Reliability Standard 

and not to the sub-requirements. 

62Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 1393. 

63 Id. P 1394. 

64The twenty-five commenters include: APPA, 

Associated Electric, BGE, BPA, Constellation, 

Dominion, EEI, E.ON, EPSA, GSOC & GTC, ISO/ 

RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L, Minnesota Power, 

Montana-Dakota, NV Energy, NERC, NorthWestern, 

PG&E, Platte River, Portland, SPP, Westar, WECC, 

and Wisconsin Electric. 65NERC Comments at 21. 

performance metrics is low. Platte River 

also believes it is too difficult to 

establish specific parameters and to 

monitor trends across entities because 

systems are topologically unique and 

operational situations differ. 

Commenters note that the systematic 

approach to training addresses the 

performance metric because its checks 

and balances verify that a person can 

perform the task after training. 

Commission Determination 

70. The Commission believes that 

performance metrics should be 

developed to gauge the effectiveness of 

a Reliability Standard if it is feasible to 

do so. We are pleased that NERC is 

working to develop performance 

measures that will address reliability 

standards in general. Based on the 

comments, it appears that it may be 

infeasible or, at a minimum, 

impracticable to develop performance 

metrics for some individual Reliability 

Standards; e.g., PER–005–1. However, 

we find that, based on this project, 

NERC is already in the process of 

evaluating the feasibility of developing 

meaningful performance metrics to 

evaluate the effectiveness of PER–005– 

1. The Commission encourages NERC to 

complete its generic performance 

measures project. 

H. Violation Risk Factors/Violation 

Severity Levels 

NOPR Proposal 

71. In the NOPR, the Commission 

proposed deferring action on the 

proposed violation risk factors (VRF) 

and violation severity levels (VSL) for 

both of the proposed Reliability 

Standards until the Commission acts on 

NERC’s pending petition in Docket No. 

RR08–4–005, in which NERC proposes 

a ‘‘roll-up’’ approach for VRFs and VSL 

assignments by which NERC would 

only assign VRFs and VSLs to the main 

Requirements and not to the subRequirements.61

Comments 

72. The ISO/RTO Council, the sole 

commenter on this issue, supports the 

Commission’s proposal to defer action 

on the proposed violation risk factors 

and violation severity levels 

assignments. No commenter objected to 

the proposal to defer action. 

Commission Determination 

73. The Commission will defer 

discussion on the proposed violation 

risk factors and violation severity levels 

assigned to PER–005–1 and PER–004–2 

until after the Commission issues a final 

order acting on NERC’s petition in 

Docket No. RR08–4–005. 

I. Unaddressed Directives 

NOPR Proposal 

74. The Commission noted in the 

NOPR that NERC, in developing 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1, did not comply with the 

directive in Order No. 693 to expand the 

applicability of the personnel training 

Reliability Standard, PER–002–0, to 

include (i) generator operators centrallylocated at a generation control center 

with a direct impact on the reliable 

operation of the Bulk-Power System, 

and (ii) operations planning and 

operations support staff who carry out 

outage planning and assessments and 

those who develop System Operating 

Limits (SOL), Interconnection 

Reliability Operating Limits (IROL) or 

operating nomograms for real-time 

operations.62 The Commission also 

directed, in Order No. 693, NERC to 

consider whether personnel that 

support Energy Management System 

(EMS) applications should be included 

in mandatory operator personnel 

training requirements.63 Noting NERC’s 

proposal to address the expansion of the 

applicability of the training standard 

(PER–005–1) and to consider including 

EMS support personnel in the training 

standard in a subsequent standards 

development project, Project 2010–01— 

Support Personnel Training, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether NERC should target completing 

Project 2010–01 by the fourth quarter of 

2011. 

Comments 

75. Twenty-five entities commented 

on this issue.64 BPA is the only 

commenter that believes Project 2010– 

01 can be completed by fourth quarter 

2011. The other commenters, including 

NERC, state that a fourth quarter 2011 

deadline is not reasonable. A number of 

commenters believe that a 24-month 

deadline would be an appropriate 

timeframe for NERC to comply with the 

Order No. 693 directives. 

76. NERC states that, with respect to 

incorporating generator operators into 

the applicability section of PER–005–1, 

it must interact with the Commission to 

obtain more direction before proceeding 

with the standards development 

process. NERC commits in its comments 

to meeting the directive to consider 

whether personnel who support EMS 

applications should be included the 

mandatory training Reliability Standard 

within 24 months after August 23, 

2010.65

77. Other commenters such as APPA 

and Dominion encourage the 

Commission to allow Project 2010–01 to 

follow the natural course of the 

Reliability Standards development 

procedures without imposing a specific 

deadline. APPA notes that, in NERC’s 

draft 2011–2013 Reliability Standards 

Development Plan, Project 2010–01 is 

fourteenth of seventeen projects which 

will be initiated in numerical order. 

Further, APPA states that NERC’s 

Reliability Standards development 

‘‘pipeline’’ is already full to capacity. 

APPA is concerned that a ‘‘hard’’ 

deadline for Project 2010–01 might 

delay ongoing projects. APPA 

encourages the Commission to 

collaborate with NERC on the priority 

for Reliability Standards projects in 

conjunction with the Reliability 

Standards Development Plan rather than 

setting deadlines in individual 

proceedings. 

78. With respect to the Order No. 693 

directive to expand training to include 

operations planning and operations 

support staff who carry out outage 

planning and assessments and persons 

who develop SOLs, IROLs or operating 

nomograms for real-time operations, 

several commenters raise issues 

regarding the substance of the original 

directive. These issues are beyond the 

scope of the timing issue the 

Commission raises in the NOPR. For 

example, Associated Electric urges the 

Commission to direct NERC to adopt a 

definition of operations planning and 

operations support staff that more 

narrowly identifies those personnel who 

will be subject to the training standard. 

GSOC and GTC do not support 

expanding the applicability of the PER– 

005–1 training requirements to any 

other personnel. GSOC and GTC further 

argue that time spent expanding training 

requirements to other personnel will 

take away from their job of supporting 

their operating personnel, a use of time 

and resources that could actually 

decrease reliability. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72675 

66Associated Electric’s Comments at 6. 

Associated Electric states that, in the NOPR, the 

Commission ‘‘defines’’ operations planning and 

operations support staff as persons ‘‘who carry out 

outage planning and assessments and those who 

develop SOLs and IROLs, or operating nomograms 

for real-time operations.’’ 

67Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 1393. 

68 Id. P 1372. 

69See id. P 1359–61. 

70See id. P 1360. 

71 Id. P 1361. 

72NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,661 at P 58. 

73See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,242 at P 1359–65. 

79. With respect to the Order No. 693 

directive to expand training to include 

generator operators centrally-located at 

a generation control center with a direct 

impact on the reliable operation of the 

Bulk-Power System, several commenters 

raise issues regarding the substance of 

the original directive. These issues also 

are beyond the scope of the timing issue 

the Commission raises in the NOPR. For 

example, Constellation notes that in 

developing training requirements for 

generator operators the Reliability 

Standard should not create onerous 

training obligations or impose training 

requirements that conflict with or make 

existing programs less effective. E.ON 

comments that there is no sound basis 

for imposing the same or similar 

training requirements mandated for 

transmission operations on generator 

personnel. E.ON urges the Commission 

to weigh the complexity of mandating 

individual plant-specific training 

programs against the incremental 

benefit to Bulk-Power System reliability. 

EPSA seeks clarification regarding 

several aspects of the scope and intent 

of the Commission’s directive to expand 

the applicability of PER–005–1 to 

include generator operators. 

Specifically, EPSA asks the Commission 

to reaffirm its finding in Order No. 693 

that the training will apply only to 

employees at generator operators’ 

centrally-located dispatch centers or 

when a single generator and dispatch 

center are at the same site. EPSA seeks 

as well Commission guidance regarding 

the sufficiency and consistency of 

existing Regional Transmission 

Organization/Independent System 

Operator (RTO/ISO) training programs 

applicable to generator operators with 

respect to the reliability training needs 

identified in the NOPR. EPSA also 

objects to the suggestion in the NOPR 

that, in the event that communication is 

lost with the grid operator, a generator 

operator would take unilateral action for 

which its personnel would require 

training. 

80. With respect to the Order No. 693 

directive that NERC consider whether 

EMS personnel should be incorporated 

into the system operator training 

Reliability Standard, BGE comments 

that no separate training is needed for 

EMS personnel, as EMS personnel 

already are regularly trained. EEI states 

that, because the skills and functions of 

EMS personnel are unique, the 

development of training requirements 

for EMS support personnel should take 

place as a separate, stand-alone 

development project. 

Commission Determination 

81. GSOC and GTC, E.ON, and 

Constellation raise issues regarding the 

substance and scope of the original 

Order No. 693 directives. Such 

comments are a collateral attack on 

Order No. 693 and will not be readdressed. Such issues should be vetted 

through NERC’s standards development 

process as part of the standards drafting 

and balloting, and ultimately may be 

raised in comments in a future 

Commission proceeding in which the 

proposed standard(s) or modified 

standard(s) are before the Commission. 

82. Associated Electric expressed 

concern that the NOPR definition of the 

‘‘operations planning and operations 

support staff’’ who should receive 

training pursuant to the Order No. 693 

directive is ‘‘broad and will encompass 

operations planning and operation 

support staff who engage in tasks that 

do not directly affect the reliable 

operation of the bulk electric system.’’ 66

The Commission clarifies that the scope 

of the Reliability Standard or 

modification to a Reliability Standard to 

address training for ‘‘operations 

planning and operations support staff’’ 

is limited by the qualifications stated in 

Order No. 693. Specifically, in Order 

No. 693, the Commission directed the 

ERO to develop a modification to PER– 

002–0 that extends applicability of the 

training requirements to the operations 

planning and operations support staff of 

transmission operators and balancing 

authorities.67 The Commission further 

clarified that such directive applies only 

to operations planning and operations 

support personnel who: ‘‘Carry out 

outage coordination and assessments in 

accordance with Reliability Standards 

IRO–004–1 and TOP–002–2, and those 

who determine SOLs and IROLs or 

operating nomograms in accordance 

with Reliability Standards IRO–005–1 

and TOP–004–0.’’ 68 The NOPR did not 

expand or alter the scope of this 

directive as set forth in Order No. 693. 

83. EPSA requests clarification of 

several statements in the NOPR 

regarding the Order No. 693 directive 

related to expanding the applicability of 

the system operator training Reliability 

Standard to include certain generator 

operators. First, EPSA expresses 

concern that the NOPR discussion 

broadly addresses generator operator 

personnel in a way that could be 

construed as subjecting all generator 

operator personnel, regardless of the 

disposition of the generating unit and 

how it fits into the grid and the topology 

of the grid, to the system operator 

training requirements. Therefore EPSA 

seeks clarification that the Commission 

did not intend for the NOPR to expand 

the Order No. 693 directive. We confirm 

that we have not modified the scope of 

applicability of the Order No. 693 

directive regarding generator operator 

training.69 As described in Order No. 

693, the directive applies to generator 

operator personnel at a centrally-located 

dispatch center who receive direction 

and then develop specific dispatch 

instructions for plant operators under 

their control. Those generator operator 

personnel must receive formal training 

of the nature provided to system 

operators under PER–005–1.70 As 

clarified in Order No. 693, this group of 

personnel would include a generator 

operator’s dispatch personnel where a 

single generator and dispatch center are 

located at the same site.71

84. EPSA also seeks clarification 

regarding the statement in the NOPR 

that: ‘‘[I]n the event communication is 

lost, the generator operator personnel 

must have had sufficient training to take 

appropriate action to ensure reliability 

of the Bulk-Power System.’’ 72 EPSA 

expresses concern that this statement 

suggests that if communication is lost 

with the grid operator, the generator 

operator must take unilateral action for 

which it requires training. EPSA notes 

that generator operators do not take 

such unilateral action nor do they have 

access to information to make such 

decisions. Therefore, EPSA asks the 

Commission to make clear that while 

communication should be addressed in 

training requirements for centrally 

located generator operator dispatch 

employees, the Commission is not 

extending related responsibilities or 

training requirements to generator 

operator employees. We grant the 

requested clarification, and affirm that 

we are not modifying the Order No. 693 

directive regarding training for certain 

generator operator dispatch personnel, 

nor are we expanding a generator 

operator’s responsibilities.73

85. EPSA also raises the issue of 

potentially overlapping or duplicative 

training programs. EPSA notes that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

74EPSA Comments at 8. 

75See supra at P 45 & n.40. 

76North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation, 132 FERC ¶ 61,217 (2010). 

77 Id. P 102. 

78 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

79 5 CFR 1320.11. 

training requirements already exist in 

organized markets and compliance with 

them is a condition for market 

participation, citing PJM and CAISO as 

examples, and asserts that new training 

requirements should either mesh with 

or build upon those already in place. 

EPSA further notes that regional 

transmission organizations and 

independent system operators have 

training programs for generator 

operators that ensure that grid 

participants are well trained on grid 

operations and the needs of grid 

operators. EPSA believes that any 

modified or new Reliability Standard 

related to generator operator training 

should not conflict with or supplant the 

organized markets’ existing training 

requirements. Accordingly, EPSA states 

that the Commission’s 

‘‘acknowledgment of these existing 

programs and how they might fit with 

the expansion of PER–005–1 would 

provide useful guidance for Project 

2010–01.’’ 74 The Commission believes 

that, in the above-discussion regarding 

the systematic approach to training, the 

systematic approach to training 

methodology is flexible enough to build 

on existing training programs by 

validating and supplementing the 

existing training content, where 

necessary, using systematic methods.75

It is important that the relevant 

generator operator personnel receive the 

necessary training. Our determination is 

not intended to limit the source of that 

training, provided that it meets the 

requirements of the Reliability 

Standard. 

86. With respect to the time frame 

within which NERC should complete 

the unaddressed training directives, the 

Commission recently issued on order on 

NERC’s three year assessment.76 That 

order requires NERC to identify and 

address all Reliability Standards 

prioritization matters when submitting 

its annual Reliability Standard 

Development plan, beginning with the 

plan for 2012.77 The Commission 

recognizes the importance of a 

collaborative approach to setting 

priorities for Reliability Standard 

projects and NERC’s need for flexibility 

in setting project priorities in order to 

efficiently utilize the technical expertise 

available to NERC’s standards drafting 

teams. We anticipate that NERC will 

include this project in its assessment of 

its Reliability Standards priorities. With 

respect to the Order No. 693 directive to 

consider whether personnel that 

support EMS applications should be 

included in the training Reliability 

Standard, we accept NERC’s 

commitment to satisfy this directive by 

August 23, 2012. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

87. The following collections of 

information contained in this proposed 

rule have been submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.78

OMB’s regulations require OMB to 

approve certain information collection 

requirements imposed by agency rule.79

88. The Commission solicited 

comments on the need for and the 

purpose of the information contained in 

these two Personal Performance, 

Training and Qualification Reliability 

Standards and the corresponding 

burden to implement them. The 

Commission received comments on 

specific requirements in the Reliability 

Standards, which we address in this 

Final Rule. The Commission has not 

directed any modifications to the 

Requirements in the two Reliability 

Standards being approved. Thus, the 

Final Rule does not materially or 

adversely affect the burden estimates 

provided in the NOPR. 

89. However, the Commission 

received comments on our reporting 

burden estimates. Of the twenty-eight 

entities that filed comments on the 

NOPR, two entities, the ISO/RTO 

Council and Westar, comment on the 

record keeping burden. Both the ISO/ 

RTO Council and Westar note that 

proposed Reliability Standard PER– 

005–1 includes a new requirement that 

applicable entities use a systematic 

approach to training which includes 

record-keeping requirements (including 

a job-task-analysis) that are significantly 

greater than the Commission’s estimates 

provided in the NOPR. In addition, the 

ISO/RTO Council asserts that Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1, as submitted, 

more than adequately covers 

appropriate record keeping 

requirements. With respect to the 

estimate of the record-keeping 

requirements, in the NOPR, the 

Commission considered the inclusion of 

a systematic approach to training 

requirement when developing the 

record-keeping estimates. Moreover, 

neither commenter provides an estimate 

of the record-keeping burden. The 

Commission finds that the two 

commenters did not provide sufficient 

information to support increasing the 

record keeping burden estimates. With 

respect to the ISO/RTO Council’s 

assertion that PER–005–1, as submitted, 

more than adequately covers 

appropriate record keeping 

requirements, this issue is moot as this 

final rule does not require NERC to 

make any modifications to PER–005–1. 

90. Burden Estimate: The public 

reporting and records retention burdens 

for the proposed reporting requirements 

and the records retention requirement 

are as follows: 

Data collection 

Number 

of new 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Recordkeeping 80

hours per 

respondent 

Total annual 

recordkeeping 

hours 

PER–005–1, R1.1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must create a list of bulk electric 

system reliability-related tasks performed by system operators. ................. 81 7 7 40 280 

PER–005–1, R1.2: RCs, TOs, and BAs shall design and develop learning 

objectives and training materials based on its task list. .............................. 7 7 60 420 

PER–005–1, R2: RCs, TOs, and BAs shall verify system operators’ ability 

to perform each assigned task from applicable task list. ............................ 7 7 80 560 

PER–005–1, M1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have available for inspection 

evidence of using a systematic approach to training to establish and implement a training program. ......................................................................... 7 7 50 350 

PER–005–1, M1.1: Each RC, TO, and BA must have available for inspection its company-specific, reliability-related task list. ................................... 7 7 10 70 

PER–005–1, M1.2: Each RC, TO, and BA must have available for inspection its learning objectives and training materials. ....................................... 7 7 10 70 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72677 

80The proposed Reliability Standards do not 

impose any reporting requirements. 

81Only seven of the 16 registered reliability 

coordinators are not currently subject to training 

requirements as balancing authorities. 

82This hourly rate reflects the hourly rate for 

engineers based on information provided to the 

Commission in Docket No. RM08–13. See 

Transmission Relay Loadability Reliability 

Standard, 130 FERC ¶ 61,221, at P 327 (2010) (Final 

Rule). 

83Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 

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

1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

84 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). 

85 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

86The 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. 

Data collection 

Number 

of new 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Recordkeeping 80

hours per 

respondent 

Total annual 

recordkeeping 

hours 

PER–005–1, M1.3: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have available for inspection 

system operator training records. ................................................................ 7 7 10 70 

PER–005–1, M1.4: Each RC, TO, and BA must have available for inspection evidence that it performed an annual training program evaluation. ..... 7 7 25 175 

PER–005–1, M2: Each RC, TO, and BA must have available for inspection 

evidence that it verified that its system operators can perform each assigned task from the training task list. ......................................................... 7 7 20 140 

PER–005–1, M3: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have available for inspection 

their annual training records evidencing that each system operator received 32 hours of emergency operations training. ..................................... 7 7 20 140 

PER–005–1, M3.1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have available for inspection 

training records evidencing that each system operator received emergency training using simulation technology. ................................................ 7 7 20 140 

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,415 

• Total Annual hours for Collection: 

Recordkeeping = Total Hours. 

Information Collection Costs: 

Recordkeeping = 2415 hours @ $120/ 

hour 82 = $289,800. 

• Total costs = $289,800. 

• Title: Mandatory Reliability 

Standards for the Bulk-Power System. 

• Action: Proposed Collection of 

Information. 

• OMB Control No: 1902–0244. 

• Respondents: Business or other for 

profit, and/or not for profit institutions. 

• Frequency of Responses: On 

occasion. 

• Necessity of the Information: This 

final rule would approve revised 

Reliability Standards that modify the 

existing requirement for entities to 

develop training programs and train 

certain personnel. The Reliability 

Standards require entities to maintain 

their training materials and training 

records subject to review by the 

Commission and NERC to ensure 

compliance with the Reliability 

Standards. 

• Internal review: The Commission 

has reviewed the requirements 

pertaining to the Reliability Standards 

for the Bulk-Power System and 

determined that the Requirements are 

necessary to meet the statutory 

provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. 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. 

91. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC [Attention: Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

Phone: (202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273– 

0873, e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov]. 

Comments on the requirements of this 

order 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 FERC–725A and the docket 

number of this final rule in your 

submission. 

IV. Environmental Analysis 

92. 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.83 The actions taken in this 

Final Rule fall within the categorical 

exclusion in the Commission’s 

regulations for rules that are clarifying, 

corrective or procedural, for information 

gathering, analysis, and 

dissemination.84 Accordingly, neither 

an environmental impact statement nor 

environmental assessment is required. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

93. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 85 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, transmission 

operators, and balancing authorities, to 

which the requirements of this rule 

would apply do not fall within the 

definition of small entities.86 Moreover, 

the proposed Reliability Standards 

reflect a continuation of existing 

training requirements for transmission 

operators and balancing authorities and 

are ‘‘new’’ only with respect to reliability 

coordinators. 

94. As indicated above, based on 

available information regarding NERC’s 

compliance registry, approximately 

seven entities will be responsible for 

compliance with proposed Reliability 

Standards PER–004–2 and PER–005–1 

that were not already subject to the 

existing Reliability Standards 

comprising the same base training 

requirements as contained in the new 

Reliability Standards. The Commission 

does not consider this a substantial 

number. Further, few if any of the seven 

reliability coordinators are small 

entities. Based on the foregoing, the 

Commission certifies that this Final 

Rule will not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72678 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

entities. Accordingly, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required. 

VI. Document Availability 

95. 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. 

96. 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. 

97. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during 

normal business hours from FERC 

Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

VII. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

98. These regulations are effective 

January 25, 2011. The Commission 

notes that although the determinations 

made in this Final Rule are effective 

January 25, 2011, Reliability Standard 

PER–004–2 approved in this final rule 

will not become effective until the first 

day of the first calendar quarter after 

regulatory approval and that Reliability 

Standard PER–005–1 approved in this 

final rule will become effective on a 

staggered basis, as identified in 

Appendix B, with the earliest effective 

date being first day of the first calendar 

quarter after regulatory approval for 

PER–005–1, Requirement R3. 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. 

Appendix A: Commenting Party 

Acronyms 

Abbreviation Commenter 

APPA ........................................................ American Public Power Association. 

Associated Electric ................................... Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

BGE .......................................................... Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. 

BPA .......................................................... Bonneville Power Administration. 

Constellation ............................................ Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc., Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., and Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC. 

Dominion .................................................. Dominion Resources Services, Inc. on behalf of its affiliates. 

EEI ........................................................... Edison Electric Institute. 

E.ON ........................................................ E.ON U.S. LLC. 

EPSA ........................................................ Electric Power Supply Association. 

GSOC & GTC .......................................... Georgia System Operations Corp. and Georgia Transmission Corp. 

IESO ......................................................... Ontario Independent Electricity System. 

ISO/RTO Council ..................................... ISO/RTO Council. 

ITC ........................................................... International Transmission Company d/b/a ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, ITC Midwest LLC, and ITC Great Plains, LLC. 

KCP&L ..................................................... Kansas City Power & Light Company and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company. 

MidAmerican ............................................ MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. 

Minnesota Power ..................................... Minnesota Power. 

Montana-Dakota ....................................... Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. 

NRECA ..................................................... National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc. 

NV Energy ................................................ Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Co. 

NERC ....................................................... North American Electric Reliability Corporation. 

NorthWestern ........................................... NorthWestern Corp d/b/a/ NorthWestern Energy. 

PG&E ....................................................... Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 

Platte River .............................................. Platte River Power Authority. 

Portland .................................................... Portland General Electric Co. 

SPP .......................................................... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. 

Westar ...................................................... Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electric Co. 

WECC ...................................................... Western Electricity Coordinating Council. 

Wisconsin Electric .................................... Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 

Appendix B 

COORDINATION OF RETIREMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATES TABLE

Existing approved 

standard 

Requirement to be 

retired or replaced 

Proposed 

standard 

New requirement 

to be implemented Date for concurrent retirement and implementation 

PER–002–0 .................... R1 PER–005–1 R1 1st calendar quarter 24 months after regulatory approval. 

R2 R1.1 

R3 R1.1.1 

R3.1 R1.2 

R3.2 R1.3 

R3.3 R1.4 

R3.4 R2 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72679 

COORDINATION OF RETIREMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATES TABLE—Continued 

Existing approved 

standard 

Requirement to be 

retired or replaced 

Proposed 

standard 

New requirement 

to be implemented Date for concurrent retirement and implementation 

R2.1 

PER–004–1 .................... R3 

R4 

PER–002–0 .................... R4 PER–005–1 R3 1st day of 1st calendar quarter after regulatory approval. 

PER–004–1 .................... R2 

PER–004–1 .................... R1 PER–004–2 R1 1st day of 1st calendar quarter after regulatory approval. 

R5 R2 

N/A .................................. N/A PER–005–1 R3.1 1st day of 1st calendar quarter 36 months after 

regulatory approval. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29717 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 510 

[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0002] 

New Animal Drugs; Change of 

Sponsor’s Name and Address 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is amending the 

animal drug regulations to reflect a 

change of sponsor’s name from Belcher 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to Belcher 

Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The sponsor’s 

mailing address will also be changed. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

26, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven D. Vaughn, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (HFV–100), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7520 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855; 240–276–8300, email: steven.vaughn@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Belcher 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 12393 Belcher 

Rd., suite 420, Largo, FL 33773 has 

informed FDA that it has changed its 

name and address to Belcher 

Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 6911 Bryan Dairy 

Rd., Largo, FL 33777. Accordingly, the 

Agency is amending the regulations in 

21 CFR 510.600 to reflect this change. 

This rule does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ 

Therefore, it is not subject to the 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to 

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 

CFR part 510 is amended as follows: 

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 510 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 

353, 360b, 371, 379e. 

■ 2. In § 510.600, in the table in 

paragraph (c)(1), revise the entry for 

‘‘Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’’; and in 

the table in paragraph (c)(2), revise the 

entry for ‘‘062250’’ to read as follows: 

§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug 

labeler codes of sponsors of approved 

applications. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Firm name and address Drug labeler code 

* * * * * 

Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 

6911 Bryan Dairy Rd., Largo, 

FL 33777.

062250 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

Drug labeler code Firm name and address 

* * * * * 

062250 .... Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 

6911 Bryan Dairy Rd., Largo, 

FL 33777. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

Elizabeth Rettie, 

Deputy Director, Office of New Animal Drug 

Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29693 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 285 

[Docket ID: BOEM–2010–0045] 

RIN 1010–AD71 

Renewable Energy Alternate Uses of 

Existing Facilities on the Outer 

Continental Shelf—Acquire a Lease 

Noncompetitively 

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior. 

ACTION: Direct Final rule. 

SUMMARY: BOEMRE is revising 

regulations that pertain to 

noncompetitive acquisition of an Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) renewable 

energy lease. We are taking this action 

because the current regulations covering 

noncompetitive leasing of an OCS 

renewable energy lease and an 

unsolicited request for an OCS 

renewable energy lease are inconsistent. 

This rulemaking will make the two 

processes consistent with each other by 

eliminating an extra step in the 

noncompetitive leasing process. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes 

effective on January 25, 2011 unless 

BOEMRE publishes a notice 

withdrawing this rule before that date. 

Comment Due Date: Submit 

comments on the direct final rule by 

December 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy Redding at (703) 787–1219. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES