Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40081 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Request for supplemental 

comments. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40082 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1Essential 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). 

2 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012). 

3Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving 

Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, 

154 FERC ¶ 61,117 (2016). 

4NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at PP 2, 11, 13. 

5 Id. P 2. 

6 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012). 

7 Id. 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). 

9ESA Comments at 4. 

10 Id. at 3–4. 

SUMMARY: 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, 

Jomo.Richardson@ferc.gov. 

Mark Bennett (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8524, Mark.Bennett@ferc.gov. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40083 

11 Id. 12 Id. at 4–5. 13 Id. at 5. 14AES Comments at 17 and 19 (specifying 

changes to the proposed pro forma language). 15 Id. at 6–7. 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40084 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

16For 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. 

17NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 41 (citing IEEE– 

P1547 Working Group Comments at 1, 5, and 7). 

18Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3; 

NRECA Comments at 8. 

19Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3 

(citing NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 42). 

20 Id. at 3–4. 

21NRECA Comments at 8. 

22 Idaho Power Comments at 2; NRECA 

Comments at 8; TVA Comments at 3–4. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40085 

23See NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 42 (citing 

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,097, at 

P 28 (2015)). 

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. 

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 

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 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers 

33 CFR Part 209 

[COE–2016–0016] 

RIN 0710–AA72 

Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Reservoir Projects for Domestic, 

Municipal & Industrial Water Supply 

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, 

Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) is reopening the 

public comment period for the notice of 

proposed rulemaking that appeared in 

the Federal Register of December 16, 

2016. 

DATES: 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. 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0371; FRL–9966–46– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD 

Replacement Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS