RM16-6 30-day Fed Reg

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to
participate in this proposed rulemaking
by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis
supporting the views and suggestions
presented are particularly helpful in
developing reasoned regulatory
decisions on the proposal. Comments
are specifically invited on the overall
regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related
aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this notice must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to
Docket No. FAA–2017- 0145/Airspace
Docket No. 17–AGL–4.’’ The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter.
All communications received on or
before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before
taking action on the proposed rule. The
proposal contained in this notice may
be changed in light of the comments
received. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through
the FAA’s Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/
airspace_amendments/.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received, and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see the
ADDRESSES section for the address and
phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX,
76177.
Availability and Summary of
Documents for Incorporation by
Reference
This document proposes to amend
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Aug 23, 2017

Jkt 241001

Designations and Reporting Points,
dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order
7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E
airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile
radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius)
of Burlington Municipal Airport,
Burlington, WI. Airspace redesign is
necessary due to the decommissioning
of the Burbun VOR, cancellation of the
VOR approach and updating the
geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA’s aeronautical
database. This action would enhance
the safety and management of the
standard instrument approach
procedures for (RNAV) IFR operations at
the airport.
Class E airspace designations are
published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016,
and effective September 15, 2016, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current, is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in
adverse or negative comments. It,
therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as
the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40081

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to
amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1

[Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is
amended as follows:

■

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.

*

*

*

*

*

AGL WI E5 Burlington, WI [Amended]
Burlington Municipal Airport, WI
(Lat. 42°41′27″ N., long. 88°18′17″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile
radius of Burlington Municipal Airport.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on August 16,
2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group,
ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017–17755 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 35
[Docket No. RM16–6–000]

Essential Reliability Services and the
Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary
Frequency Response: Notice of
Request for Supplemental Comments
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Request for supplemental
comments.
AGENCY:

E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM

24AUP1

40082

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules

On November 17, 2016, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that,
among other things, proposed to revise
the Commission’s regulations to require
all newly interconnecting large and
small generating facilities, both
synchronous and non-synchronous, to
install and enable primary frequency
response capability as a condition of
interconnection. In this document, the
Commission seeks supplemental
comments related to whether and when
electric storage resources should be
required to provide primary frequency
response, and the costs associated with
primary frequency response capabilities
for small generating facilities.
DATES: Comments are due September
14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. RM16–6–000,
by any of the following methods:
• Electronic filing through http://
www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and
not in a scanned format. Commenters
filing electronically do not need to make
a paper filing.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters
unable to file comments electronically
may mail or hand deliver comments to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jomo Richardson (Technical
Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6281,
[email protected].
Mark Bennett (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502–8524, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. On November 17, 2016, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 1 that
proposed to modify the pro forma Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement
(LGIA) and the pro forma Small
Generator Interconnection Agreement
(SGIA), pursuant to its authority under
section 206 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA) to ensure that rates, terms and
conditions of jurisdictional service

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

remain just and reasonable and not
unduly discriminatory or preferential.2
As modified, the pro forma LGIA and
pro forma SGIA would require all new
large and small generating facilities,
both synchronous and nonsynchronous, to install, maintain, and
operate equipment capable of providing
primary frequency response as a
condition of interconnection. The
Commission also proposed certain
operating requirements, including
minimum requirements for droop and
deadband parameters, and requirements
to ensure the timely and sustained
response to frequency deviations in the
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA. In
this document, the Commission seeks
supplemental comments related to
whether and when electric storage
resources should be required to provide
primary frequency response, and the
costs associated with primary frequency
response capabilities for small
generating facilities.
I. Background
2. Following a Notice of Inquiry (NOI)
that explored a broad range of issues
regarding primary frequency response
and the evolving Bulk-Power System,3
the Commission issued the NOPR at
issue in this proceeding. In the NOPR,
the Commission explained that its
proposals address concerns that the
existing pro forma LGIA contains only
limited primary frequency response
requirements, and those requirements
only apply to large synchronous
generating facilities, and do not reflect
recent technological advancements
enabling new large and small nonsynchronous generating facilities to
install the capability to provide primary
frequency response.4 Further, the
Commission stated that to avoid
establishing new requirements that
could be unduly discriminatory or
preferential, the proposed reforms
would impose comparable primary
frequency response requirements on
both new large and small generating
facilities.5 In addition, the Commission
did not propose to: (1) Apply these
requirements to generating facilities
regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; (2) impose a headroom
requirement; or (3) mandate that new
generating facilities receive
compensation for complying with the
proposed requirements, noting that a
public utility is not prohibited from
2 16

1 Essential

Reliability Services and the Evolving
Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 81 FR 85176
(November 25, 2016), 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 (2016)
(NOPR).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Aug 23, 2017

Jkt 241001

U.S.C. 824e (2012).
Reliability Services and the Evolving
Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response,
154 FERC ¶ 61,117 (2016).
4 NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at PP 2, 11, 13.
5 Id. P 2.
3 Essential

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

filing a proposal for primary frequency
response compensation under FPA
section 205,6 if it so chooses.7
3. In the NOPR, the Commission
explained that the proposed
requirements will help ensure adequate
primary frequency response capability
as the resource mix continues to evolve,
with fair and consistent treatment for all
types of generating facilities, and will
help balancing authorities meet their
frequency response obligations under
NERC Reliability Standard BAL–003–
1.1.8
II. Request for Comments
A. Electric Storage Resources
4. The NOPR proposals did not
propose provisions specific to electric
storage resources. Several commenters
raise concerns that, by failing to address
electric storage resources’ unique
technical attributes, the NOPR
requirements could pose an unduly
discriminatory burden on electric
storage resources. The Energy Storage
Association (ESA) asserts that the
proposed requirements could result in
unique, adverse impacts on electric
storage resources. Particularly, ESA
states that the proposed use of
nameplate capacity as the basis for
primary frequency response service and
the fact that electric storage resources
are capable of operating at the full range
of their capacity (i.e., they have no
minimum set point) will require storage
to provide a ‘‘greater magnitude of
[primary frequency response] service
than traditional generating facilities.’’ 9
ESA also explains that while traditional
generating facilities would have no
primary frequency response obligations
while offline, electric storage resources
are always online, even when not
charging or discharging, and under the
requirements proposed in the NOPR,
they would therefore be required to
provide primary frequency response on
a more frequent basis than generating
facilities that can go offline.10 Further,
ESA explains that the optimal depth of
discharge differs among various electric
storage technologies, and exceeding the
optimal depth of discharge accelerates
the degradation of the facility and
6 16

U.S.C. 824d (2012).
PP 1, 55.
8 Id. P 43. In January 2014, the Commission
approved Reliability Standard BAL–003–1 requiring
balancing authorities to meet a minimum required
Frequency Response Obligation. While Reliability
Standard BAL–003–1 establishes requirements for
balancing authorities, it does not impose
requirements on individual generating facilities.
Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting
Reliability Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC
¶ 61,024 (2014).
9 ESA Comments at 4.
10 Id. at 3–4.
7 Id.

E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM

24AUP1

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules
increases operations and maintenance
costs.11
5. To address its concerns, ESA
requests that the Final Rule: (1) Allow
electric storage resources to specify a
minimum set point for the purposes of
primary frequency response capability
as a condition of interconnection; and
(2) include inadequate state of charge as
an operational constraint that would
relieve electric storage resources from
the sustained response requirement.12
In the absence of these changes, ESA
requests an exemption from the
proposed primary frequency response
requirements.13 In its comments, AES
Companies (AES) seeks a complete
exemption from the proposed NOPR
requirements for electric storage
resources.14 AES also asserts that a
droop requirement of five percent
would needlessly limit the contribution
that electric storage resources that are
specifically designed for primary
frequency response can make to grid
stability.15
6. In light of these concerns, the
Commission seeks additional
information to better understand the
performance characteristics and
limitations of electric storage resources,
possible ramifications of the proposed
primary frequency response
requirements on electric storage
resources, and what changes, if any, are
needed to address the issues raised by
ESA and others. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on the
following questions:
1. Some commenters state that certain
proposed requirements are not
appropriate for electric storage
resources, in particular, certain of the
proposed settings related to droop (e.g.,
basing the droop parameter on
nameplate capacity) and the
requirement for timely and sustained
response to frequency deviations.
a. Are there challenges or operational
implications (e.g., unusual or excessive
wear and tear) of requiring electric
storage resources to implement the
proposed operating settings for droop
(including basing the droop parameter
on nameplate capacity), deadband, and
timely and sustained response? If so,
please provide an explanation, and
explain how these challenges are
different than those faced by other
synchronous and non-synchronous
generating facilities.
b. Also, please explain whether and
how possible impacts of the proposed
11 Id.
12 Id.

at 4–5.
at 5.
14 AES Comments at 17 and 19 (specifying
changes to the proposed pro forma language).
15 Id. at 6–7.
13 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Aug 23, 2017

Jkt 241001

requirements on electric storage
resources vary by their state of charge,
and whether those possible impacts are
the same or different for all electric
storage technologies. If these impacts
vary by the type of electric storage
technology, please elaborate.
c. If the proposed operating settings
for droop, deadband, and sustained
response would cause any operational
or other concerns unique to electric
storage resources that would justify
different operating settings than those
proposed in the NOPR, what minimum
requirements for droop, deadband, and
timely and sustained response might be
more appropriate for the effective
provision of primary frequency response
from electric storage resources? Or are
there parameters other than those
discussed in the NOPR (e.g., droop,
deadband) that are more applicable to
electric storage resources that could be
used to accomplish effective timely and
sustained primary frequency response?
If so, what would those parameters be?
2. Are there risks associated with
requiring electric storage resources,
which are energy-limited, to provide
timely and sustained primary frequency
response, such as possible adverse
effects on an electric storage resource’s
ability to fulfill other obligations (e.g.,
providing energy or other ancillary
services)?
3. Please describe the relationship
between electric storage resources being
online and the provision of primary
frequency response.
a. Are electric storage resources that
are always online available on a more
frequent basis to provide primary
frequency response than generating
facilities that start-up and shut-down
(i.e., go offline)? If so, please elaborate
on possible operational or other
impacts, if any, that the proposed
requirements may have on generating
facilities that are always online, as
compared to generating facilities that go
offline.
b. Please discuss whether it is
possible to ‘‘turn off’’ an electric storage
resource’s primary frequency response
capability (i.e., disable the ability to
respond to frequency deviations without
physically disconnecting from the grid)
when the electric storage resource is
neither charging nor discharging and
not providing other services (e.g., energy
or other ancillary services) to the power
system. To the extent possible, please
explain if this ability would vary by the
type of electric storage technology.
4. Please explain what is meant by
‘‘minimum set point’’ and elaborate on
how and by whom it would be defined
and determined.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40083

a. Could possible adverse impacts of
the proposed primary frequency
response requirements on electric
storage resources be minimized or
eliminated, if owners/operators of such
resources or another entity were
allowed to establish a minimum set
point for the provision of primary
frequency response service? If so, please
elaborate.
b. Would the primary frequency
response requirements proposed in the
NOPR result in electric storage
resources that have no such minimum
set point providing a greater magnitude
of primary frequency response for a
given frequency deviation than other
generating facilities of equal nameplate
capacity that have a minimum set point?
Please provide an explanation as to why
this is or is not the case.
c. How and in what ways would the
implementation of such a minimum set
point change an electric storage
resource’s response to frequency
deviations, as compared to other
generating facilities that do not
implement a minimum set point? As
part of this explanation, please explain
whether the implementation of a
minimum set point would: (1) Limit the
provision of primary frequency response
for electric storage resources to a
megawatt (MW) range (i.e., between a
minimum value and the nameplate
capacity of the electric storage resource);
(2) be used in lieu of nameplate capacity
as the basis of the droop curve (i.e.,
reduce the expected proportional MW
response to frequency deviations below
that of other generating facilities of
equivalent nameplate capacity for a
given percentage droop (e.g., a 5 percent
droop)); or (3) be used in some other
way.
d. If owners/operators of electric
storage resources or another entity were
allowed to establish a minimum set
point for the purposes of primary
frequency response:
i. How would they determine the
appropriate value of the minimum set
point for a given electric storage
resource? What technical characteristics
or economic factors should be
considered in establishing a minimum
set point for the various types of electric
storage resources?
ii. Should the minimum set point be
static, or dynamic and subject to change
based on technical or other factors? If it
is subject to change, please explain the
factors that would warrant such
changes.
iii. Should owners/operators of
electric storage resources be required to
specify in their interconnection
agreements the value of the minimum
set point and indicate whether it is

E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM

24AUP1

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40084

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules

static or dynamic? In what manner
should this information be provided to
the relevant balancing authority?
5. Please explain what is meant by
‘‘inadequate state of charge’’ and
elaborate on how and by whom it would
be defined and determined.
a. Could possible adverse impacts of
the proposed primary frequency
response requirements on electric
storage resources be minimized or
eliminated if owners/operators of such
resources or another entity were
allowed to define inadequate state of
charge as an explicit operational
constraint relieving electric storage
resources from providing sustained
response when in that ‘‘inadequate’’
state? If so, please elaborate.
b. If owners/operators of electric
storage resources or another entity were
allowed to define inadequate state of
charge as an operational constraint for
electric storage resources:
i. How would they determine what
level of charge is ‘‘inadequate’’ thus
preventing electric storage resources
from providing sustained primary
frequency response output?
ii. Should the inadequate state of
charge parameter be static, or dynamic
and subject to change based on
technical or other factors? If it is subject
to change, please explain the factors that
would warrant such changes.
iii. Should owners/operators of
electric storage resources be required to
specify in their interconnection
agreements a parameter for ‘‘inadequate
state of charge’’ and indicate whether it
is static or dynamic? In what manner
should this information be provided to
the relevant balancing authority?
6. What impacts, if any, would
owners/operators of electric storage
resources experience if their resources
are not allowed to maintain a specified
range of state of charge?
a. Is there a certain range of state of
charge (expressed as a percentage of
total charge) that would enable an
electric storage resource to provide
primary frequency response without
possible adverse impacts?
b. Would this range be the same for
all electric storage resources, or would
it depend on the particular technology
of a given electric storage resource and/
or the duration that the resource could
sustain its output?
c. Are there differences in terms of
adverse impacts on an electric storage
resource depending on whether its state
of charge is low (e.g., five percent
remaining charge) or high (e.g., 98
percent remaining charge)? If so, please
elaborate.
d. To the extent there are adverse
impacts, would they differ for different

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Aug 23, 2017

Jkt 241001

electric storage technologies? If so,
please elaborate.
7. In lieu of (1) establishing a
minimum set point for electric storage
resources and (2) including an
inadequate state of charge as an
operational constraint, could owners/
operators of all or certain types of
electric storage resources or another
entity specify an operating range 16
outside of which electric storage
resources would not be required to
provide and/or sustain primary
frequency response to prevent adverse
impacts on the electric storage
resources?
a. Would it be possible to base such
an operating range on manufacturer
specifications and, if so, would
establishing such an operating range
potentially address concerns about the
harm to the resource, degradation of its
useful life, or other potential adverse
impacts?
b. Would it be possible to specify
such an operating range at the time of
interconnection and include the
operating range in the interconnection
agreement? By what means should the
operating range be communicated to the
relevant balancing authority?
8. Are there other mechanisms or
ways to address the concerns raised by
ESA and others on the proposed
primary frequency response
requirements instead of: (1) Establishing
a minimum set point and including an
inadequate state of charge as an
operational constraint; or (2)
establishing an operating range as
described above.
B. Small Generating Facilities
7. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed that small generating facilities
be subject to new primary frequency
response requirements in the pro forma
SGIA. The Commission stated that the
record indicates that small generating
facilities are capable of installing and
enabling governors at low cost in a
manner comparable to large generating
facilities.17
8. Some commenters raise concerns
that small generating facilities could
face disproportionate costs to install
primary frequency response
capability.18 For example, the Public
Interest Organizations state that the
Commission’s discussion of the
economic impact on small generating
16 For the purposes of this document, ‘‘operating
range’’ is defined as minimum state of charge,
maximum state of charge, maximum rate of charge,
and maximum rate of discharge.
17 NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 41 (citing IEEE–
P1547 Working Group Comments at 1, 5, and 7).
18 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3;
NRECA Comments at 8.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

facilities of installing primary frequency
response capability is limited, and
claims the information in the NOPR
does not directly support the
Commission’s conclusion that ‘‘small
generating facilities are capable of
installing and enabling governors at low
cost in a manner comparable to large
generating facilities.’’ 19 Public Interest
Organizations encourage the
Commission to further investigate the
cost for small renewable energy
generating facilities to install frequency
response capability before making the
proposed revisions to the pro forma
SGIA.20 National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association (NRECA)
asserts that the record is insufficient to
conclude that the proposed primary
frequency response capability
requirement will not pose an undue
burden on smaller generating
facilities.21
9. Other commenters request that the
Commission consider a size limitation.
In particular, Idaho Power Company
(Idaho Power), NRECA, and Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) request the
Commission adopt a size limitation for
applying the NOPR requirements.22
10. To augment the record regarding
the ability of small generating facilities
to comply with the proposed primary
frequency response requirements, and
their potential economic impact, the
Commission seeks comment on the
following questions:
1. Are the costs for small generating
facilities to install, maintain, and
operate governors or equivalent controls
proportionally comparable to the costs
for large generating facilities? If costs are
proportionally higher for small
generating facilities to install, maintain,
and operate governors or equivalent
controls, what accounts for these higher
costs? Quantify, to the extent possible,
any general differences in these costs
between small and large generating
facilities.
2. If small generating facilities were
required to comply with the proposed
primary frequency response
requirements, do recent technological
advances in primary frequency response
capability minimize or eliminate
possible barriers to entry of small
generating facilities? If not, in what
specific ways could the proposed
requirements be a barrier to entry?
Should such negative impacts occur,
please discuss means by which the
19 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3
(citing NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 42).
20 Id. at 3–4.
21 NRECA Comments at 8.
22 Idaho Power Comments at 2; NRECA
Comments at 8; TVA Comments at 3–4.

E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM

24AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Commission could potentially mitigate
or eliminate them?
3. Is an exemption appropriate for all
or a subset of small generating facilities
based on possible disproportionate cost
impacts of installing the capability to
provide primary frequency response? If
so, please provide specific cost data
demonstrating that is the case.
4. Given their increasing market
penetration and operational role in the
Bulk-Power System, please discuss the
extent to which small generating
facilities are necessary to ensure
adequate primary frequency response.
5. Please discuss whether PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM’s) recent
changes to its interconnection
agreements, which require new large
and small non-synchronous generating
facilities to install enhanced inverters
that include primary frequency response
capability,23 address concerns regarding
possible disproportionate costs or
barriers resulting from applying the
NOPR proposals to the entire set of
small generating facilities. If yes, please
discuss the viability of applying PJM’s
approach in other regions.

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

III. Comment Procedures
11. The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments on the
matters and issues proposed in this
document to be adopted, including any
related matters or alternative proposals
that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due September 14, 2017.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM16–6–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their
address in their comments.
12. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The
Commission accepts most standard
word processing formats. Documents
created electronically using word
processing software should be filed in
native applications or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
13. Commenters that are not able to
file comments electronically must send
an original of their comments to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
14. All comments will be placed in
the Commission’s public files and may
be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document
23 See NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 42 (citing
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,097, at
P 28 (2015)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Aug 23, 2017

Jkt 241001

Availability section below. Commenters
on this proposal are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
IV. Document Availability
15. 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 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
16. 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.
17. 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 email at
[email protected], or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the
Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: August 18, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–17952 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

40085

proposed rulemaking that appeared in
the Federal Register of December 16,
2016.
The comment period for the
proposed rule published December 16,
2016 at 81 FR 91556 and extended to
August 18, 2017 at 82 FR 22452 is
reopened until November 16, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
and title, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: WSRULE2016@
usace.army.mil. Include the docket
number, COE–2016–0016, in the subject
line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
ATTN: CECC–L, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 441 G St NW., Washington,
DC 20314.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to
security requirements, we cannot
receive comments by hand delivery or
courier.
DATES:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical information: Jim Fredericks,
503–808–3856. Legal information:
Daniel Inkelas, 202–761–0345.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
response to requests from multiple
parties, USACE is extending the time for
public comments to November 16, 2017.
The date listed in the DATES section by
which comments must be received is
changed from August 18, 2017 to
November 16, 2017.
Dated: August 17, 2017.
David R. Cooper,
Chief Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[FR Doc. 2017–17779 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

33 CFR Part 209

40 CFR Part 52

[COE–2016–0016]

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0371; FRL–9966–46–
Region 4]

RIN 0710–AA72

Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Reservoir Projects for Domestic,
Municipal & Industrial Water Supply
Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:

The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) is reopening the
public comment period for the notice of

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD
Replacement Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
portion of Alabama’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Alabama,
through the Alabama Department of

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM

24AUP1