Federal Register Vol. 82, No.185,

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2017 (82 FR 21144). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0241.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We corrected the estimate of work hours from 0 in the NPRM to 4 in this final rule. This revision increases the estimate of the cost per product from $5,805 in the NPRM to $6,145 in this final rule. The total cost was correctly estimated at $24,580 in the NPRM and is therefore unchanged in this final rule.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except for minor editorial changes and the minor revisions to the costs of compliance section noted above. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Technify Motors GmbH has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB TMG 125-1020 P1, Initial Issue, dated January 27, 2016. The SB describes procedures for replacing the clutch with a dual mass flywheel. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 4 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2017 (82 FR 24257). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0140.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (82 FR 24257, May 26, 2017) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

RRD has issued Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) TAY-72-A1813, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2017. The Alert NMSB provides instructions to determine or re-calculate the consumed and remaining service life. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 25 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0767; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-26-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0242, dated December 7, 2016 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0767.

RR has issued Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. TRENT XWB 72-AJ443, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2016. The Alert NMSB describes procedures for replacement of all non-conforming LPC case support inboard pins. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by EASA, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires replacement of all non-conforming LPC case support inboard pins.

No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

We estimate that this AD affects no engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2017 (82 FR 18588). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0099.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) commented that the affected smoke detectors were approved by EASA rather than by France.

We agree. These smoke detectors were approved by EASA. We did not change this AD because this AD does not reference the certifying authority for these smoke detectors. The section commented on by EASA exists only in the “Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD” section of the NPRM. We did not change this AD.

Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that we revise the Applicability section of this AD to remove the reference to the date range when certain affected smoke detectors were produced. Delta indicated that the NPRM may be interpreted as implying that there are more affected smoke detector serial numbers than those identified in paragraph 1/D/of Siemens Service Information Letter (SIL) PMC-26-002, Revision No. 1, dated January 2016, and of SIL PMC-26-003, Revision No. 2, dated February, 2016. Delta commented that removing the date range from the Applicability section of this AD would clarify applicability for operators.

We agree. We find that providing the part numbers (P/Ns) and serial numbers (S/Ns) for the affected smoke detectors sufficiently identifies all affected detectors. We revised this AD by removing the reference to the production date range from the Applicability section of this AD.

Delta requested that we revise paragraph (f)(2) in the compliance section of this AD to indicate that repaired units identified in Figure (1) to paragraph (c) of this AD should be replaced within 5 months after the effective date of this AD. Delta commented that the NPRM does not specify when these affected detectors are to be replaced.

We agree. We revised the compliance section of this AD to specify that smoke detectors identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD must be replaced within 5 months after the effective date of this AD.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International, commented that it supports the intent of this AD to correct the unsafe condition on the affected products.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Siemens has issued SIL No. PMC-26-002, Revision No. 1, dated January 2016 and SIL No. PMC-26-003, Revision No. 2, dated February 2016. SIL No. PMC 26-002 provides a list of S/Ns for affected smoke detectors, P/Ns PMC1102-02, PMC3100-00, and GMC1102-02, known to be installed on Airbus A330 passenger, A330 freighter, and A380 airplanes. SIL No. PMC 26-003 provides a list of S/Ns for affected smoke detectors, P/N PMC1102, known to be installed on Boeing B737-400 airplanes that have been converted via supplemental type certificate from a passenger to a freighter airplane. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects an unknown number of smoke detectors installed on, but not limited to, various aircraft of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class E airspace extending up to and including 700 feet above the surface area at Wayne Municipal/Stan Morris Field, Wayne, NE, in support of the instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also will be updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 22924, May 19, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0287 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne Municipal/Stan Morris Field (formally the Wayne Municipal Airport), Wayne, NE. Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, the FAA found that the airport name had a name change to Wayne Municipal/Stan Morris Field from the Wayne Municipal Airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, 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.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7.5-mile radius) of Wayne Municipal/Stan Morris Field, Wayne, NE. Airspace redesign of standard instrument approach procedures is necessary for IFR operations at the airport due to the decommissioning of the Wayne NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport also are updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial 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 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.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the north central United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

On July 25, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 48364), Docket No. FAA-2016-7055, to establish restricted area R-2306F, Yuma Proving Ground, AZ.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA identified geographic coordinates to more accurately reflect the existing boundaries using digital charting capabilities. The geographic coordinates identifying Laguna Army Airfield required a slight adjustment to accurately reflect the exact location. The geographic coordinates before and after Laguna Army Airfield needed to be corrected to ensure the FAA digital database meet tolerances of gap analysis.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to establish a new restricted area (R-2306F) in the vicinity of Laguna Army Airfield (LGF) at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. This action also incorporates the restricted area updates noted in the “Differences from the NPRM” section of this final rule. The FAA is taking this action for testing that includes both ground and air-to-ground propagation of non-eye-safe lasers, high power radars and developmental, unproven weapons systems. Testing includes the actual operation of these systems using various proven and unproven aircraft platforms. Due to the hazards of these systems, it is imperative that these activities be segregated within a restricted area. The changes from the NPRM are as follows:

R-2306F: The geographic coordinates proposed as “lat. 32°51′18″ N., long. 114°19′29″ W.” in the boundaries description are changed to “lat. 32°51′19″ N., long. 114°19′29″ W.” Additionally, the geographic coordinates proposed as “lat. 32°51′52″ N., long. 114°23′34″ W.” in the boundaries description are changed to “lat. 32°51′53″ N., long. 114°23′35″ W.” Lastly, the geographic coordinates proposed as “lat. 32°49′30″ N., long. 114°26′39″ W.” in the boundaries description are changed to “lat. 32°49′30″ N., long. 114°26′38″ W.” These coordinates are changed from the NPRM to ensure the FAA digital database meet tolerances of gap analysis.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of establishing a new restricted area (R-2306F) in the vicinity of Laguna Army Airfield (LGF) at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, qualifies for FAA adoption as authorized under 40 CFR 1506.3, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraphs 8-2 and 9-2, Adoption of Other Agencies' National Environmental Policy Act Documents, and Written Re-evaluations, and 7400.2L, paragraph 32-2-3.

FAA's environmental impact review included an independent evaluation and adoption of the Army's Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Proposed Special Use Airspace at Laguna Army Airfield, Yuma, Arizona which included the establishment of Restricted Area Airspace R-2306F. The Army's SEA, for which the FAA was a cooperating agency, was published July 2015 with issuance of its Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on September 28, 2015.

The FAA has carefully considered its statutory mandate under 49 U.S.C. 40103 to ensure the safe and efficient use of the National Airspace System as well as the other aeronautical goals and objectives discussed in the Army's SEA, and has determined that the Army's Proposed Action provides the best airspace combination for meeting the needs stipulated in its SEA, that the SEA adequately assesses and discloses the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action, and that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from that alternative have been adopted. Additionally, the FAA has determined that there have not been substantial changes to the Army's Proposed Action relevant to environmental concerns, and that there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts. Therefore, the FAA has concluded that an additional supplement to the Supplemental EA is not required.

A copy of the FAA's Adoption EA and FONSI/ROD document is available at https://www.regulations.gov/ by referencing this docket number.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

ORDER NO. 836 FINAL RULE

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission approves Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 (Balancing Authority Control) and FAC-001-3 (Facility Interconnection Requirements), submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), as well as the retirement of Reliability Standards BAL-005-0.2b (Automatic Generation Control), FAC-001-2 (Facility Interconnection Requirements), and BAL-006-2 (Inadvertent Interchange). The Commission also approves the associated implementation plans, violation risk factors, and violation severity levels for Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3. Finally, the Commission approves three revised definitions for the glossary of terms used in NERC's Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary).

2. The Commission determines that Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3 will enhance the reliability of the Bulk-Power System, as compared to currently-effective Reliability Standards BAL-005-0.2b and FAC-001-2, by clarifying and consolidating existing requirements related to frequency control. In addition, the Commission determines that the revised Reliability Standards support more accurate and comprehensive calculation of Reporting Area Control Error (Reporting ACE), by requiring timely reporting of an inability to calculate Reporting ACE and by requiring balancing authorities to maintain minimum levels of annual availability of 99.5 percent for each balancing authority's system for calculating Reporting ACE. Based on the information received in the comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding,2 as well as in response to a subsequent data request issued to NERC,3 the Commission has determined that it will not, at this time, direct NERC to restore existing requirements in Requirement R15 of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b related to maintaining and testing backup power supplies at primary control centers and other critical locations. We also approve NERC's request to retire Reliability Standard BAL-006-2, BAL-005-0.2b and FAC-001-2 upon the effective date of Reliability Standard BAL-005-1.

3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards that are subject to Commission review and approval. Specifically, the Commission may approve, by rule or order, a proposed Reliability Standard or modification to a Reliability Standard if it determines that the Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest.4 Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by NERC, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.5

4. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a process to select and certify an ERO,6 and subsequently certified NERC as the ERO.7 On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the initial 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including Reliability Standards BAL-005-0 (Automatic Generation Control), FAC-001-0 (Facility Interconnection Requirements), and BAL-006-1 (Inadvertent Interchange).8 In addition to approving Reliability Standards BAL-005-0 and BAL-006-1, the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to those Reliability Standards through the NERC standards development process.

5. With respect to Reliability Standard BAL-005-0, the Commission directed NERC to develop a modification that:

(1) develops a process to calculate the minimum regulating reserve a balancing authority must have at any given time taking into account expected load and generation variation and transactions being ramped into or out of the balancing authority; (2) changes the title of the Reliability Standard to be neutral as to the source of regulating reserves and to allow the inclusion of technically qualified DSM and direct control load management; (3) clarifies Requirement R5 of this Reliability Standard to specify the required type of transmission or backup plans when receiving regulation from outside the balancing authority when using non-firm service; and (4) includes Levels of Non-Compliance and a Measure that provides for a verification process over the minimum required automatic generation control or regulating reserves a balancing authority must maintain.9

Subsequently, the Commission approved one interpretation of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0 and two errata filings.10 The currently-effective version of the Reliability Standard is BAL-005-0.2b.

6. With respect to Reliability Standard BAL-006-1, the Commission directed NERC to develop a modification “that adds Measures concerning the accumulation of large inadvertent imbalances and Levels of Non-Compliance.” 11 The Commission explained the need for such a modification as follows:

While we agree that inadvertent imbalances do not normally affect the real-time operations of the Bulk-Power System and pose no immediate threat to reliability, we are concerned that large imbalances represent dependence by some balancing authorities on their neighbors and are an indication of less than desirable balancing of generation with load. The Commission also notes that the stated purpose of this Reliability Standard is to define a process for monitoring balancing authorities to ensure that, over the long term, balancing authorities do not excessively depend on other balancing authorities in the Interconnection for meeting their demand or interchange obligations.12

Since then, the Commission has approved one revision to Reliability Standard BAL-006-1 to remove the regional waiver of certain requirements for the Midcontinent ISO, following the Midcontinent ISO's transition to a single balancing authority model.13 The currently-effective version of the Reliability Standard is BAL-006-2.

7. On April 20, 2016, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 (Balancing Authority Control) and FAC-001-3 (Facility Interconnection Requirements), nine new or revised definitions associated with the Reliability Standards, and retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards BAL-005-0.2b (Automatic Generation Control), FAC-001-2 (Facility Interconnection Requirements), and BAL-006-2 (Inadvertent Interchange).

8. In its petition, NERC requested that the two modified Reliability Standards and the revised definitions of Automatic Generation Control, Pseudo-Tie, and Balancing Authority become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter twelve months from the effective date of the applicable governmental authority's approval of NERC's petition. NERC also requested that the retirement of Reliability Standard BAL-006-2 become effective upon the latter of the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 and the NERC Operating Committee's approval of an Inadvertent Interchange Guideline document.

9. For the six remaining definitions (Reporting ACE 14 and its component definitions: Actual Frequency, Actual Net Interchange, Scheduled Net Interchange, Interchange Meter Error, and Automatic Time Error Correction), NERC initially requested an effective date of July 1, 2016, to coincide with the effective date for Reliability Standard BAL-001-2. However, NERC subsequently withdrew its request for approval of the six Reporting ACE-related definitions from the instant docket, and filed for expedited approval of the six definitions in a separate docket. The six definitions were approved by delegated letter order on June 23, 2016, and are no longer at issue in the instant proceeding.15

10. NERC explained in its petition that Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3, and the proposed retirement of Reliability Standard BAL-006-2, came about as part of the second phase of NERC's project to “clarify, consolidate, streamline, and enhance the Reliability Standards addressing frequency control.” 16 NERC indicated in its petition that the standard drafting team developed the proposed revisions after reviewing applicable Commission directives, “Paragraph 81” criteria, and the recommendations of the periodic review team that examined Reliability Standards BAL-005-0.2b and BAL-006-2.17

11. NERC described the revisions to Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b as clarifying and refining the current requirements “for accurate, consistent, and complete” reporting of Reporting ACE, which is a key frequency control and reliability indicator.18 These revisions include relocating some of the current requirements of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, which relate to confirming that facilities are within a balancing authority's metered boundary, into Reliability Standard FAC-001-3. In addition, NERC proposed to relocate Requirement R3 of currently-effective Reliability Standard BAL-006-2 into Reliability Standard BAL-005-1, explaining that the requirement relates to ensuring that balancing authorities use consistent data sources to calculate Reporting ACE, and therefore more properly belongs in Reliability Standard BAL-005.

12. NERC explained that the revised Reliability Standards “represent substantial improvements over existing Reliability Standards by helping to support more accurate and comprehensive calculation of Reporting ACE and satisfying all remaining Commission directives for Reliability Standards BAL-005 and BAL-006.” 19 Further, NERC maintained that Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 is an improvement over the currently-effective version, BAL-005-0.2b, because it “consolidates unnecessary or repetitive Requirements and moves certain metrics for calculating Reporting ACE to the revised, proposed definition of Reporting ACE.” 20 Among other things, NERC proposed to move requirements applicable to generator operators and transmission operators in currently-effective Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, into a more appropriate Reliability Standard, explaining that “[a]s the purpose of FAC-001-3 is more commensurate with interconnection responsibilities, interconnection procedures contained in currently effective BAL-005-0.2b should be included in proposed Reliability Standard FAC-001-3.” 21

13. In addition, NERC asserted that Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 improves on the currently-effective version of the Reliability Standard because proposed Requirement R2 clarifies the performance expectations for notification to reliability coordinators when a balancing authority is unable to calculate Reporting ACE for 30 minutes or more,22 and Requirement R5 “introduces a new obligation . . . to assure the availability of a BA's system used to calculate Reporting ACE,” requiring a minimum availability of 99.5 percent in each calendar year.23

14. NERC stated that the package of revisions reflected in its petition addresses the outstanding directives related to Reliability Standards BAL-005 and BAL-006 from Order No. 693. Specifically, NERC stated that the title of Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 has been modified from Automatic Generation Control to Balancing Authority Control “to reflect the connection to Reporting ACE and resource-neutral requirements.” 24 In addition, NERC indicated that it has revised the definition of Automatic Generation Control to ensure a resource-neutral process for controlling demand and resources.25

15. NERC also stated that the requirements of Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 all have a “medium” violation risk factor, thereby addressing the Commission's directive to revise the violation risk factor for Reliability Standard BAL-005-0, Requirement R17 to “medium.” 26 Similarly, NERC asserted that it met the directive to consider Xcel and FirstEnergy's comments about the scope of Requirement R17, which set minimum accuracy requirements for time error and frequency devices, by retiring part of the currently-effective requirement and moving the minimum accuracy requirements into Requirement R3 of Reliability Standard BAL-005-1. NERC maintained that this response has “streamlined obligations to use specific frequency metering equipment that is necessary for operation of [automatic generation control (AGC)] and accurate calculation of Reporting ACE, as this ensures that costs associated with implementation are commensurate with reliability benefit.” 27

16. NERC proposed to move Requirement R3 from currently-effective Reliability BAL-006-2 into Reliability Standard BAL-005-1, but NERC proposed to retire the rest of the requirements of Reliability Standard BAL-006-2 (Requirements R1, R2, R4, and R5). NERC stated that the standard drafting team determined that, aside from Requirement R3, each of the requirements in Reliability Standard BAL-006-2 are “energy accounting standards” and/or are “administrative” in nature, and should accordingly be retired.28

17. NERC acknowledged that the Commission previously directed it to develop measures concerning the accumulation of large inadvertent imbalances, based on the Commission's concern that large imbalances may indicate an underlying problem. NERC explained, however, that the requirements of Reliability Standard BAL-001-2, which require balancing authorities to maintain clock-minute ACE within the Balancing Authority ACE Limit, as well as the requirements of Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 and proposed Reliability Standard BAL-002-2, which require entities to restore Reporting ACE within predefined bounds, prevent any excessive dependency on other entities. As NERC explained in its petition:

Because entities are supporting frequency through this coordinated suite of reliability standards, entities will not excessively depend on other entities in the Interconnection such that the purely economic issue that was addressed by BAL-006-2 becomes a reliability issue for a NERC Reliability Standard.29

18. In order to address “any remaining or potential concerns with retirement of BAL-006-2,” NERC proposed that the retirement become effective only upon the Operating Committee's approval of an Inadvertent Interchange Guideline document.30 NERC stated that the Inadvertent Interchange Guideline document was based on a white paper developed by the standard drafting team for Reliability Standards BAL-005 and BAL-006, and maintained that it provides an in-depth justification for why a NERC Reliability Standard is not necessary for inadvertent interchange.

19. With respect to the three proposed definitions that remain at issue in this proceeding, NERC explained that: (1) “Automatic Generation Control” has been revised to set forth a resource-neutral process for controlling demand and resources; (2) “Pseudo-Tie” has been updated to reflect the use of the term “Reporting ACE;” and (3) “Balancing Authority” has been revised to more accurately describe a balancing authority's resource demand function.

20. On June 14, 2016, NERC submitted supplemental information in support of its April 20, 2016 petition (Supplemental Filing), to provide additional explanation and support for the retirement of Requirement R15 in currently-effective Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b.31 In its Supplemental Filing, NERC maintained that Requirement R15 should be retired because the objectives of that requirement (i.e., to ensure the continued operation of AGC and certain data recording equipment during the loss of normal power supply) are being addressed through other Reliability Standards and requirements. Specifically, NERC maintained that Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 requires a balancing authority to have a backup control center facility and an operating plan that allows it to meet its functional obligations with regard to the reliable operation of the bulk electric system in the event that its primary control center functionality is lost.32

21. In addition, NERC maintained that the proposed performance requirements of Requirement R3 of Reliability BAL-005-1, which would require balancing authorities to “use frequency metering equipment for the calculation of Reporting ACE that is available a minimum of 99.95% of each calendar year,” will help to ensure that balancing authorities can continuously operate the equipment necessary for the calculation of Reporting ACE, effectively eliminating the need for Requirement R15.33

22. On September 22, 2016, the Commission issued a notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to approve Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3, as replacements for the existing versions of those standards, and to approve the retirement of Reliability Standard BAL-006-2 on the latter of the effective date of BAL-005-1 or the NERC Operating Committee's approval of an Inadvertent Interchange Guideline. In the NOPR, the Commission raised several questions about the impact of eliminating Requirement R15 from currently-effective Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, which requires responsible entities to maintain and periodically test backup power supplies at primary control centers and other critical locations.34 The Commission indicated that, depending on the information received in comments in response to its questions, it may decide to issue a directive to restore the substance of Requirement R15 as part of a final rule.35

23. Five sets of comments were filed in response to the NOPR.36 Subsequently, the Commission staff issued a data request to NERC seeking additional information about the current practices of a representative sample of entities concerning the use of backup power supplies.37 Specifically, the Commission sought further information from a sample of existing balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, and transmission operators related to the kinds of backup power supply they maintain at control centers and other critical locations, including current testing practices for those backup power supplies. NERC submitted its response to the data request on April 7, 2017.

24. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), the Commission approves Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3 will enhance reliability as compared to currently-effective Reliability Standards BAL-005-0.2b and FAC-001-2, because the Reliability Standards clarify and consolidate existing requirements related to frequency control. In addition, Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 supports more accurate and comprehensive calculation of Reporting ACE by requiring timely reporting of an inability to calculate Reporting ACE (Requirement R2) and by requiring minimum levels of availability and accuracy for each balancing authority's system for calculating Reporting ACE (Requirement R5).

25. We also approve the violation risk factors and violation severity levels associated with Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3; the revisions to the definitions of Automatic Generation Control, Pseudo-Tie, and Balancing Authority as proposed by NERC; the retirement of Reliability Standards BAL-005-0.2b, FAC-001-2, and BAL-006-2 in accordance with NERC's implementation plan; 38 and NERC's implementation plans for proposed Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3.

26. As discussed below, the Commission determines not to direct NERC to restore the requirement, currently found in Requirement R15 of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, to maintain and test backup power supplies at primary control centers and other critical locations at this time.

27. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3. The Commission noted that the modified Reliability Standards would clarify and consolidate existing requirements related to frequency control, and that Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 would support more accurate and comprehensive calculation of Reporting ACE.

28. NERC, Trade Associations, and BPA submitted comments in support of the Commission's proposal to approve Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3. NERC maintains, as it did in its petition and supplemental filing, that the modified Reliability Standards not only address all remaining directives related to BAL-005 and BAL-006, but also “substantially improve existing frequency control requirements and support stronger frequency control performance.” 39 Similarly, Trade Associations argue that the Reliability Standards will support more accurate and comprehensive calculation of Reporting ACE, as the Commission recognized in the NOPR.40

29. We approve Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3. As proposed in the NOPR, the Commission determines that the modified Reliability Standards will, overall, enhance reliability by clarifying and consolidating existing requirements related to frequency control. Specifically, the Reliability Standards will support more accurate and comprehensive calculation of Reporting ACE by requiring timely reporting of an inability to calculate Reporting ACE and by requiring balancing authorities to maintain minimum levels of annual availability of 99.5 percent for each balancing authority's system for calculating Reporting ACE.

30. The NOPR observed that Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 does not include a requirement comparable to currently-effective Requirement R15 of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, which states as follows:

31. The NOPR recognized that the approach taken in Reliability Standard BAL-005-1, when combined with the requirements of other Reliability Standards requiring entities to meet their functional obligations in the event of the loss of a primary control center, was intended to be a more performance-based approach to ensuring reliable operation of the bulk electric system.42 However, the Commission expressed concern that the objectives of Requirement R15 would not be fully met by the other Reliability Standards and requirements NERC had identified, and in particular pointed out the following potential gap:

The NOPR also pointed out that balancing authorities currently appear to be the only type of functional entity explicitly required to have and to test adequate and reliable backup supply at critical locations, and that there is no provision parallel to Requirement R15 for reliability coordinators or transmission operators.44

32. The NOPR requested comments from NERC and others on the retirement of Requirement R15 of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, specifically asking for comment on the benefits and potential burden of retaining Requirement R15, and an explanation as to why there is no parallel to Requirement R15 for reliability coordinators and transmission operators, including whether any reason exists to distinguish between balancing authorities and other entities that may operate a control center or critical facility.45 In addition, the Commission asked commenters to respond to six specific questions regarding the impact of retiring Requirement R15; current practices with respect to backup power supply at control centers; and the scope of other requirements identified by NERC as fulfilling the same objectives as current Requirement R15.46

33. NERC, Trade Associations, and BPA maintain that Requirement R15 should be retired without further directive from the Commission, as the results-based requirements of Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 represent a more comprehensive and superior approach. NERC asserts that Reliability Standard EOP-008-1's results-based or functionality-based approach is preferable overall,47 while Trade Associations and other commenters point out that the performance levels required in Reliability Standard BAL-005-1, Requirements R3 and R5, cannot be achieved without having critical backup systems, including a backup power supply that is routinely maintained and tested.48

34. NERC contends that the existing requirements of R15 focus on only one factor contributing to reliable control center performance (i.e., backup power supplies), while Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 includes two performance obligations “that subsume requirement R15.” 49 Specifically, NERC points out that Requirement R3 requires balancing authorities to use frequency metering equipment for calculation of Reporting ACE that is available at least 99.95 percent annually, with minimum accuracy of 0.001 Hz, and Requirement R5 requires that each system used by a balancing authority to calculate Reporting ACE also be available at least 99.5 percent annually. NERC states that these performance obligations, which provide no exceptions and include other critical elements such as data acquisition and communications, frequency metering, and ACE calculation systems, contrast with existing Requirement R15, which focuses on only one component (power supply) that contributes to performance.50 In addition, NERC maintains that new Requirement R3 “will ensure virtual `continuous operation of AGC and vital data recording equipment during loss of the normal power supply,' ” thereby effectively replacing Requirement R15.51

35. NERC also maintains, as it did in its petition, that Requirement R15 should be retired, as it is redundant with broader obligations imposed on balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, and transmission operators in Reliability Standard EOP-008-1. NERC contends that applicable entities cannot comply with Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 without addressing power sources, although NERC acknowledges that backup power supply may not always be necessary to support the required backup functionality for control center functions. NERC further points out that the functionality obligations under Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 include the obligation to address operation of vital equipment necessary for the collection of data to calculate Reporting ACE, assuming frequency metering equipment does not meet the minimum performance requirement under new Requirement R3 of BAL-005-1.52 Overall, NERC maintains that Requirements R1 and R7 of Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 “are broader and clearer than Requirement R15, by requiring [applicable entities] to have in place and test Operating Plans that address all elements (including any power sources) necessary for backup functionality.” 53

36. Trade Associations maintain, on a more general level, that overly-prescriptive requirements can be burdensome and often ineffective. Trade Associations assert that in determining whether there is adequate justification for the retirement of Requirement R15, the Commission should assess “whether [the new and remaining] requirements have sufficient rigor to ensure [bulk electric system] reliability through the continuous efforts to design, build and maintain systems to achieve the desired level of performance.” 54 Trade Associations note that NERC's Independent Expert Review Panel concluded that results-based Reliability Standards would improve overall reliability.55 Moreover, Trade Associations contend that the absence of a recommendation by the Independent Expert Review Panel to retire Requirement R15 as part of its 2013 report has no bearing on the question of retirement now, given the improvements and enhancements associated with Reliability BAL-005-1. Finally, Trade Associations raise a concern that the Commission may be misconstruing Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b to address a reliability concern beyond that intended for BAL-005. Trade Associations maintain that the BAL-005 Reliability Standards “were written for the express purpose of ensuring [balancing authorities] can reliably and effectively calculate Reporting ACE in order to maintain resource and demand balance within their area of responsibility.” 56

37. As to what obligations would still exist under Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 if the backup power supply obligation in Requirement R15 was retired, NERC, Trade Associations, and all other commenters addressing the question acknowledge that EOP-008-1 does not require applicable entities to have backup power supply at the primary or the secondary control center.57 However, NERC asserts that backup functionality obligations under Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 “include the obligation to address operation of vital equipment necessary for the collection of data to calculate Reporting ACE if frequency metering equipment does not meet the minimum performance requirements under proposed R3 of BAL-005-1.” 58 By contrast, the Trade Associations acknowledge that Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 does not ensure continuous operation of AGC and vital data recording equipment during the loss of normal power supply.59

38. With respect to the NOPR's questions on current practices regarding backup power supply, BPA and Idaho Power indicate that they have backup power supply at all of their primary and secondary control centers.60 Trade Associations state that most companies have many layers of backup to ensure continued control center functionality, which may include backup power, backup generators and uninterrupted power supply.61 In response to the NOPR's questions about the definition of “critical location” as currently used in Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, Trade Associations state that the “other critical locations” referenced in current requirement R15 could refer to frequency metering equipment (including equipment outside the control center), ancillary computer rooms with energy management systems (EMS) and EMS backups, and other data systems needed for ACE calculation.62

39. With respect to the benefits and burdens of having backup power supply at certain locations, Idaho Power acknowledges the benefits of having backup power supply at primary control centers and other critical locations (including the benefit of ensuring compliance with other reliability requirements), and it states that the potential impact to reliability is no different for reliability coordinators or transmission operators.63 Trade Associations maintain, however, that there is no need for additional requirements for reliability coordinators and transmission operators related to backup power supply, because other Reliability Standards require or encourage certain levels of reliability and functionality at these locations, as evidenced by the historical lack of problems with loss of EMS or loss of power supply at control centers.64

40. Appelbaum primarily discusses the importance of backup power supplies in the context of communications networks. Appelbaum points to a report issued by the Federal Communications Commission in response to the June 2012 “derecho” event on communications networks and services in Virginia. The report found that communications were disrupted in large part during that event because of avoidable planning and system failures, including the lack of functional backup power, notably in central offices. Appelbaum contends, based on the derecho event, that the need to properly plan and design backup power is a critical component of reliability, and asks that the findings of the derecho event be considered when the Commission assesses the functional approach of Reliability Standard EOP-008-1.65 Appelbaum points out that “there is no specific mention of the performance requirements of the backup power supply, the required design, or reference to an Industry Standard” in Reliability Standard EOP-008-1, which “creates a degree of ambiguity that can be exploited to avoid installing a sufficient level of redundancy in power supplies.” 66 Appelbaum further states the requirement for backup power design and testing should extend to reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities.67 In sum, Appelbaum's comments stress the overall need to impose specific requirements, not merely functional obligations, related to backup power supply for critical systems.

41. In response to the Commission's March 7 Data Request requesting information on specific backup supply practices from a sampling of registered entities, NERC indicated that it collected data from nine entities, all registered as a balancing authority, reliability coordinator, transmission operator, or some combination of those functional categories. NERC indicated that the sample reflected some diversity as to size and type of entity and, therefore, the information “should be reflective of current practices throughout the industry.” 68

42. NERC's response indicates that all surveyed entities have backup power supplies at their primary and backup control centers. A number of entities responded that these backup supplies were installed prior to the effective date of NERC's mandatory Reliability Standards, and that they would not change their practices if the Commission approved the retirement of Requirement R15 of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b. NERC reported that the surveyed entities have backup power supply at a number of other critical locations, which include data centers, corporate facilities, and operations centers (e.g., those housing cyber and physical security operations). NERC indicated that the surveyed entities have two types of backup power supplies at their control centers: backup generators and uninterruptible power supplies. According to NERC, each of the surveyed entities reported that it regularly tests its backup power supplies in accordance with written procedures, the majority doing monthly run testing. NERC reported that some entities also perform switchover or transfer testing on a monthly basis, while others perform such testing at longer intervals.

43. We approve the retirement of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, including Requirement R15, upon the effective date of Reliability Standard BAL-005-1. Based on the NOPR comments, we determine not to direct NERC to develop modifications to the Reliability Standards to restore the substance of Requirement R15 at this time. We conclude that the performance obligations of Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and EOP-008-1 will ensure the continued operation of AGC and certain data recording equipment during the loss of normal power supply. Moreover, based on the responses to the March 7 Data Request, we are satisfied that backup power supplies at primary and secondary control centers and other critical locations will likely continue to be used even after the retirement of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, Requirement R15. Should that practice change to the detriment of Bulk-Power System reliability after the revised Reliability Standards go into effect, the Commission may revisit this issue.

44. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 69 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons, or contained in a rule of general applicability. The OMB regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an agency.70 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

45. This Final Rule approves revisions to Reliability Standards BAL-005, associated with FERC-725R, and FAC-001, associated with FERC-725D. These revisions streamline and clarify the current requirements related to the calculation of Reporting ACE, a key frequency control and reliability indicator factor, including consolidating the seventeen requirements of currently-effective Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b, associated with FERC-725R, into seven requirements in Reliability Standard BAL-005-1; relocation of certain requirements related to interconnection requirements for transmission owners and generation owners into Reliability Standard FAC-001-3; relocation of Requirement R3 in currently-effective Reliability Standard BAL-006-2 into Reliability Standard BAL-005-1; and relocation of certain metrics and calculations required for calculating Reporting ACE into the NERC definition of Reporting ACE and its component definitions.

46. The revisions to Reliability Standards BAL-005 and FAC-001 will not result in an increase in the record-keeping and reporting requirements imposed on balancing authorities, other than the one-time cost of administering the change to the revised Reliability Standards. All other recordkeeping and reporting obligations imposed on balancing authorities under the modified requirements essentially track those that already exist under currently-effective Reliability Standards BAL-005-0.2b and FAC-001-2. The modifications to Reliability Standard FAC-001-3 will result in a limited increase in the record-keeping and reporting requirements imposed on those transmission owners and generator owners that are not also transmission operators and generator operators (an estimated 161 entities in the United States), as shown in the chart below.71 Many of the modifications to the Reliability Standards reflected in this Final Rule were developed to help clarify and streamline existing requirements related to calculation of Reporting ACE, and they are expected to reduce these entities' overall burden with respect to recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance. Moreover, the Final Rule approves the retirement of the majority of the requirements in Reliability Standard BAL-006-2, further reducing the overall record-keeping and reporting requirements for balancing authorities. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the overall change in the record-keeping and reporting requirements as a result of this Final Rule will be de minimis on a per-entity basis.

47. Public Reporting Burden: The changes reflected in Reliability Standard BAL-005-1 are not expected to result in an increase in the annual record-keeping and reporting requirements on applicable entities (balancing authorities). However, balancing authorities will have to perform a one-time review of the modified Reliability Standard to ensure that their compliance practices (including record-keeping) are consistent with the revised requirements. The relocation of Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b into Reliability Standard FAC-001-3 will result in an increase in the number of entities subject to the requirement, as the requirement will be applicable to transmission owners and generator owners rather than transmission operators and generator operators. However, this limited increase in annual record-keeping and reporting burden, along with the one-time burden of administering the change from Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b to BAL-005-1, is expected to be offset to some extent by the decrease in record-keeping and reporting burden associated with the retirement of Reliability Standard BAL-006-2.

Title: FERC-725A, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System; FERC-725D, Mandatory Reliability Standards: FAC Reliability Standards; FERC-725R1, Mandatory Reliability Standards: BAL Reliability Standards

Action: Revision to existing collections.

OMB Control No: 1902-0244 (FERC-725A); 1902-0247 (FERC-725D); TBD (FERC-725R1).

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency of Responses: On-going.

Necessity of the Information: The Commission has reviewed the requirements of Reliability Standards BAL-005-1 and FAC-001-3 and has made a determination that the requirements of these Reliability Standards are necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA.

Internal Review: The Commission reviewed the revised Reliability Standards and made a determination that its action is necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

48. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, e-mail: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

49. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by e-mail to: [email protected]. Comments submitted to OMB should include FERC-725A, FERC-725D, and FERC-725R1 and Docket Number RM16-13-000.

50. 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.76 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.77 The actions taken here fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

51. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 78 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It only requires consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to small entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were rejected. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size standard effective January 22, 2014 for electric utilities from a standard based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of employees, including affiliates. Under SBA's size standards, some balancing authorities, generation owners, and transmission owners will fall under the following category and associated size threshold: Electric bulk power transmission and control, at 500 employees.79

52. As stated in the NOPR, the Commission estimates a very limited, one-time increase in recordkeeping and reporting burden on balancing authorities due to the changes in the revised Reliability Standards, with no other increase in the cost of compliance. Approximately 24 of the 99 balancing authorities are expected to meet the SBA's definition for a small entity. In addition, approximately 161 entities will be subject annually to new record-keeping and reporting requirements under revised Reliability Standard FAC-001-3, with no other increase in the cost of compliance.

53. Even assuming that the one-time cost of compliance for administering the change from Reliability Standard BAL-005-0.2b to BAL-005-1 is an annual cost, and assuming that all of the entities affected by the revisions to both BAL-005 and FAC-001 qualify as small entities, the estimated total annual cost to the industry as a whole is minimal ($19,055.90), and the average cost per affected entity is $118.36.

54. According to SBA guidance, the determination of significance of impact “should be seen as relative to the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the regulation has on larger competitors.” 80 The Commission does not consider the estimated burden to be a significant economic impact. As a result, the Commission certifies that the revised Reliability Standards will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

55. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

56. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.

57. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected].

These regulations are effective November 27, 2017. 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.

On June 23, 2016, we published a temporary deviation entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR, in the Federal Register (81 FR 40813), where we did not request comments. However, we conducted a public outreach in May 2016 and did not receive any objections. No complaints have been submitted during the current temporary deviation's operation.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must modify the operation schedule of the bridge by September 27, 2017 to allow Multnomah County to replace the bridge decking, but we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the modification.

We are issuing this rule and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Morrison Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.8, at Portland, Oregon. The Morrison Bridge is a double bascule bridge. When the bascule span is in the closed-to-navigation position, the bridge provides 69 feet of vertical clearance, and in the open position provides unlimited vertical clearance. The normal operating schedule for the Morrison Bridge is in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(iv). Multnomah County, the bridge owner, contacted us requesting additional time to deviate from the operating rule due to delays in receiving replacement parts, and needing to fabricate parts on site.

Multnomah County requested that the Morrison Bridge be allowed to only open half the span, 92 feet, as opposed to a full opening, 185 feet, to accommodate extra time to replace bridge decking. The County has also requested to reduce the vertical clearance of the non-opening side of the span with scaffolding erected 10 feet below the lower bridge cord for a containment system, and to require at least a two hour advance notice for an opening. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the Morrison Bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. A tug will be on site to assist vessels through the single leaf span opening upon request. The bridge will be able to open half the span for emergencies with a two hour notice, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary interim rule from the operating schedule that governs the Morrison Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.8, at Portland, Oregon. The rule is necessary to accommodate Multnomah County's replacement of the bridge decking. This rule allows the bridge to only open half of the span, single leaf, to allow for the replacement of bridge decking. The rule also allows the vertical clearance to be reduced due to the project's containment system.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit under the bridge, or give advanced notice for a half opening.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this interim rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Multnomah County has taken precaution to provide a tug to assist vessels, if needed, so businesses will not suffer any impacts. Furthermore, half the span can be opened to vessels that require an opening.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this Temporary Interim Rule as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

The Virginia Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the I-64 (High Rise) Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, mile 7.1, at Chesapeake, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate annual maintenance to remove and replace the center locks and install new electrical wiring and lubrication piping. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 65 feet above mean high water (MHW) in the closed position.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.997(e). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for four (4) separate five (5) day periods from 7 a.m., October 2, 2017, through 11 p.m., October 6, 2017; from 7 a.m., October 16, 2017, through 11 p.m., October 20, 2017; from 7 a.m., October 30, 2017, through 11 p.m., November 3, 2017; from 7 a.m., November 13, 2017, through 11.p.m., November 17, 2017. The alternate dates for inclement weather are from 7 a.m., October 9, 2017, through 11 p.m., October 13, 2017; from 7 a.m., October 23, 2017, through 11 p.m., October 27, 2017; from 7 a.m., November 6, 2017, through 11 p.m., November 10, 2017; from 7 a.m., November 18, 2017, through 11 p.m., November 22, 2017. The bridge will open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given at all other times.

The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so if at least 15 minutes notice is given. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of this effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that each SIP include a program to provide for the regulation of construction and modification of stationary sources, including a permit program as required by part C of subsection I of the CAA—Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. On October 4, 2016, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a request to revise the Minnesota SIP to include Minn. R. 7007.3000, which incorporates the Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as the State's SIP approved PSD program. Further, by letter dated June 1, 2017, MPCA clarified that it will not implement the provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(g), (s), (t), and (u) because those provisions reference authorities that are retained by the EPA Administrator.

EPA proposed to approve Minnesota's PSD SIP on July 10, 2017. (82 FR 31741, July 10, 2017). EPA received comments on the proposed action from Guardian Energy, LLC, and Granite Falls Energy, LLC. Section II of this document provides a discussion of the comments received and EPA's response.

EPA received comments from Guardian Energy, LLC, and Granite Falls Energy, LLC. The letters from the two commenters are identical. The first comment from both commenters expressed support for the proposed action. The second comment from the two commenters is a request for EPA to clarify how changes in the Federal PSD regulations will be addressed in the Minnesota SIP approved regulations. Minn. R. 7007.3000 incorporates 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, as amended. Both MPCA and EPA interpret this to mean that any changes to 40 CFR 52.21 will be automatically incorporated into Minn. R. 7007.3000, and will have the same effective date as the Federal rulemaking.

EPA is approving the request made by MPCA on October 4, 2016, to revise the Minnesota SIP to include Minn. R. 7007.3000 as the State's SIP approved PSD program.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Minnesota Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no submission or incomplete submissions, to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedures are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

On March 27, 2008, the EPA issued its final action to revise the NAAQS for ozone to establish new 8-hour standards.1 In that action, the EPA promulgated identical revised primary and secondary ozone standards, designed to protect public health and welfare, of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).2 Those standards are met when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm.3

Promulgation of a revised NAAQS triggers a requirement for the EPA to designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable for the standards. For the ozone NAAQS, this also involves classifying any nonattainment areas at the time of designation.4 Ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the area's “design value,” which represents air quality in the area for the most recent three years). The possible classifications for ozone nonattainment areas are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme.5 Nonattainment areas with a “lower” classification have ozone levels that are closer to the standard than areas with a “higher” classification.6

On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, the EPA issued rules designating areas throughout the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective July 20, 2012, and establishing classifications for the designated nonattainment areas.7 The Sacramento Metro 8 area was designated nonattainment with a classification of Severe. Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section 172 and also to the ozone-specific planning requirements of CAA section 182.

Ozone nonattainment areas in the lower classification levels have fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than those in higher classifications. For a Marginal area, a state is required to submit a baseline emission inventory, a rule requiring emissions statements from stationary sources, and a Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program for the relevant ozone standard.9 For each higher ozone nonattainment classification, a state needs to comply with all lower area classification requirements, plus additional emissions controls and more expansive NNSR offset requirements. For areas classified Serious and above, a state needs to comply with the Marginal and Moderate area requirements, plus additional submittal requirements, including: A demonstration (based on photochemical modeling) showing the area will attain by the applicable attainment date; a demonstration that the area will reduce emissions by certain prescribed percentages averaged over each consecutive 3-year period until the attainment date; and contingency plans that are triggered in the event that the attainment date or an RFP milestone is not met.10

On March 6, 2015, the EPA established a final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (“2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule”).11 The purpose of that action was to detail the requirements applicable to ozone nonattainment areas and provide specific deadlines for SIP submittals. For areas classified Serious and above, the required submission of SIP revisions providing for an attainment demonstration, RFP demonstrations, and attainment and RFP contingency measures was due 4 years after the effective date of area designation (i.e., July 20, 2016).12

For plan requirements under subpart D, title I of the CAA, such as those for ozone nonattainment areas, if the EPA finds that a state has failed to make the required SIP submittal or that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then CAA section 179(a) establishes specific consequences, including the eventual imposition of mandatory sanctions for the affected area. Additionally, such a finding triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the finding of failure to submit a complete SIP, if the affected state has not submitted, and the EPA has not approved, the required SIP submittal.

If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that a state has submitted a complete SIP addressing the deficiency that is the basis for the finding within 18 months of the effective date of this rulemaking, then pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the affected nonattainment area. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that the state has submitted a complete SIP addressing the deficiency that is the basis for the finding within 6 months after the offset sanction is imposed, then the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected nonattainment area, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. If the state does not make the required SIP submittal and the EPA does not take final action to approve the submittal within 2 years of the effective date of these findings, the EPA is required to promulgate a FIP, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31 for the affected nonattainment area.

We have yet to receive the required ozone SIP revision submittal from California for the Sacramento Metro area, and the submittal is more than six-months past due. The EPA is finding that California has failed to submit a SIP revision providing for an attainment demonstration, RFP demonstrations, and contingency measures (for attainment or RFP) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro area as required under subparts 1 and 2 of part D of title 1 of the CAA and the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. The consequences of this finding is discussed above in section I.B. of this document.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under sections 172 and 182 which address the statutory requirements that apply to areas designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS.

I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The rule is a finding that California has not submitted the necessary SIP revisions.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule finds that California has failed to submit SIP revisions that satisfy certain nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro area. No tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 172 or under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a finding that California has failed to submit certain SIP revisions that satisfy the nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro area and does not directly or disproportionately affect children.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. In finding that California has failed to submit SIP revisions that satisfy certain nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro area, this action does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).