[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19746-19750]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09455]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM18-9-000]

Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in
Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent
System Operators; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments

    On April 10 and April 11, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) staff convened a technical conference to
discuss the participation of distributed energy resource (DER)
aggregations in Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) and
Independent System Operator (ISO) markets and to more broadly discuss
the potential effects of DERs on the bulk power system.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments on the topics concerning the Commission's DER
aggregation proposal discussed during the technical conference,
including the questions listed in the Supplemental Notices issued in
this proceeding on March 29, 2018 and April 9, 2018. In addition,
Commission staff is interested in comments on several follow-up topics
and questions. Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions
asked. Attached to this notice are the DER aggregation topics and
questions related to Panels 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 from the two previous
notices, as well as Commission staff's follow-up questions related to
those panels. Please file comments relating to these issues in Docket
No. RM18-9-000.
    A notice inviting post-technical conference comments on the topics
and questions relating to the potential effects of DERs on the bulk
power system related to Panels 4 and 5 is being concurrently issued in
Docket No. AD18-10-000. Please separately file

comments relating to Panels 4 and 5 in Docket No. AD18-10-000.
    Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket
but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous
material. In addition, commenters are encouraged, when possible, to
provide examples in support of their answers. Comments must be
submitted on or before 60 days from the date of this notice and should
not exceed 30 pages.
    For further information about this Notice, please contact:

Technical Information

    David Kathan, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

Legal Information

    Karin Herzfeld, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202)
502-8459, [email protected].

    Dated: April 27, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment

RM18-9-00

Economic Dispatch, Pricing, and Settlement of DER Aggregations (Panel
1)

    In the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Electric
Storage Participation in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission
Organizations and Independent System Operators (NOPR), the Commission
proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to remove
barriers to the participation of DER aggregations in its markets by,
among other measures, establishing locational requirements for DER
aggregations that are as geographically broad as technically
feasible.\1\ The NOPR also addressed the use of distribution factors\2\
and bidding parameters\3\ for DER aggregations. In consideration of
comments received in response to the NOPR, the Commission seeks
additional information about how DER aggregations could locate across
more than one pricing node. The Commission would also like additional
information about bidding parameters or other potential mechanisms
needed to represent the physical and operational characteristics of DER
aggregations in RTO/ISO markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,718 at P 139.
    \2\ The Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise
its tariff to include the requirement that DER aggregators (1)
provide default distribution factors when they register their DER
aggregation and (2) update those distribution factors if necessary
when they submit offers to sell or bids to buy into the organized
wholesale electric markets. Id. P 143.
    \3\ The Commission sought comment on whether bidding parameters
in addition to those already incorporated into existing
participation models may be necessary to adequately characterize the
physical or operational characteristics of DER aggregations. Id. P
144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on the following topics and questions that
were included in previous supplemental notices:
    1. Acknowledging that some RTOs/ISOs already allow aggregations
across multiple pricing nodes, what approaches are available to ensure
that the dispatch of a multi-node DER aggregation does not exacerbate a
transmission constraint?
    2. Because transmission constraints change over time, would the
ability of a multi-node DER aggregation to participate in an RTO/ISO
market need to be revisited as system topology changes?
    3. Do multi-node DER aggregations present any special
considerations for the reliability of the transmission system that do
not arise from other market participants? How could these concerns be
resolved?
    4. What types of modifications would need to be made to the
modeling and dispatch software, communications platforms, and
automation tools necessary to enable reliable and efficient system
dispatch for multi-node DER aggregations? How long would it take for
these changes to be implemented?
    5. If the Commission requires the RTOs/ISOs to allow multi-node DER
aggregations to participate in their markets, how should a DER
aggregation located across multiple pricing nodes be settled for the
services that it provides? One approach to settling a multi-node DER
aggregation could be to pay it the weighted average locational marginal
price (LMP) across the nodes at which it is located. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach? Are there other
approaches that should be considered?
    6. The NOPR considered the use of ``distribution factors'' to
account for the expected response of DER aggregations from multiple
nodes. Are there other characteristics of DER aggregations that may not
be accommodated by existing bidding parameters in the RTOs/ISOs? If so,
what are they? Would new bidding parameters be necessary? If so, what
are they?
    Based on the discussion at the April 10-11 Technical Conference,
comments are also requested on the following additional questions:
    7. During the technical conference, several panelists indicated
that there has been limited interest in using CAISO's DER provider
model (DERP). Please explain why DER aggregators have not used that
model to date, what other approaches, if any, that DERs are using to
access the CAISO and other RTO/ISO markets, and whether those
alternative approaches provide adequate RTO/ISO market access for both
behind-the-meter and front-of-meter DERs.
    8. During the technical conference, some panelists noted that for
multi-node aggregations (a) there is a need to accurately represent the
capabilities of DER aggregations at each node that they are located,
and (b) more accurate representation at each node of a multi-node
aggregation begins to make the aggregation look like a single-node
resource. Some of the benefits discussed of multi-node aggregation
included allowing an aggregation of DERs to provide more reliable
services to the market and reducing transaction costs as a market
participant, among others. Conversely, there was a discussion of the
market operator's need to accurately represent the capabilities of the
aggregation at individual nodes. Please comment on the benefits of
being able to aggregate across multiple nodes versus the market
operator's need to accurately represent the capabilities of the
aggregation at individual nodes. If multi-node resources present risks
or challenges to the system, what are they? Can they be overcome? How?
    9. During the panel discussion, CAISO mentioned that it allows
multi-node aggregations within a defined set of nodes that have been
deemed to have sufficiently little congestion across the nodes. Other
panelists expressed a preference for single node aggregations. Are
there methods to identify sets of nodes within which aggregation could
be allowed that would balance concerns with multi-node aggregations
against the benefits of multi-node aggregations. For instance, are
there ways to group nodes associated with load centers that would
facilitate aggregation while not threatening reliability and
undermining the benefits of nodal pricing?
    10. Would reducing the minimum size requirement for DER
aggregations to participate in the RTO/ISO markets (for example, to 100
kW as proposed in the NYISO DER Roadmap) help alleviate some of the
concerns about requiring DER aggregations to be located only at a
single pricing node? Or, would locating at a single node inhibit the
development of DER aggregations

regardless of the minimum size requirement?
    11. How are the concerns about constraints on the transmission
system different for multi-node demand response aggregations versus
multi-node DER aggregations?
    12. During the technical conference, some panelists raised
questions regarding potential tradeoffs between establishing rules for
DER aggregations now in anticipation of a high DER future, and the
potential technology and market efficiency costs of requiring nodal
aggregation or other measures to manage the potential effects of DER
aggregations before it is necessary. What are these tradeoffs? Do they
change over time? Does the penetration of DERs affect how to assess the
tradeoffs? Does the penetration of DERs affect the appropriate
locational requirements for DER aggregations?

Discussion of Operational Implications of DER Aggregation With State
and Local Regulators (Panel 2)

    Comments are requested on state and local regulator concerns about
the operational effects that DER participation in the wholesale market
could have on facilities they regulate. Please respond to the following
topics and questions that were included in previous supplemental
notices:
    1. What are the potential positive or negative operational impacts
(e.g., safety, reliability, and dispatch) that DER participation in the
wholesale market could have on facilities regulated by state and local
authorities? How should the costs associated with monitoring and
addressing such potential impacts on the distribution grid caused by
the NOPR proposal be addressed, and fairly allocated? Are existing
retail rate structures able to allocate costs to DER aggregations that
utilize the distribution systems, and if not, what modifications or
coordination are feasible?
    2. Do state and local authorities have operational concerns with a
DER aggregation participating in both wholesale and retail markets? If
so, what, if any, coordination protocols between states or local
regulators and regional markets would be required to facilitate DER
aggregations' participation in both retail and wholesale markets? Could
the use of appropriate metering and telemetry address the ability to
distinguish between markets and services, and prevent double
compensation for the same services? What is the role of state and local
regulators in monitoring and regulating the potential for such double
compensation? How should regional flexibility be accommodated?
    3. What entities should be included in the coordination processes
used to facilitate the participation of DER aggregations in RTO/ISO
markets? Should state and local regulatory authorities play an active
role in these coordination processes? Is there a need to modify
existing RTO/ISO protocols or develop new protocols to accommodate
state participation in this coordination? What should be the role of
state and local regulators in the NOPR's proposed distribution utility
review of DER aggregation registrations?
    4. Does the proposed use of market participation agreements address
state and local regulator concerns about the role of distribution
utilities in the coordination and registration of DERs in aggregations?
Are the proposed provisions in the market participation agreements that
require that DER aggregators attest that they are compliant with the
tariffs and operation procedures of distribution utilities and state
and local regulators sufficient to address such concerns?
    5. What are the proper protections and policies to ensure that DER
aggregations participating in wholesale markets will not negatively
affect efficient outcomes in the distribution system?
    Based on the discussion at the April 10-11 Technical Conference,
comments are also requested on the following additional question:
    6. During the technical conference, some panelists noted interest
in a limited opt-out provision which would allow states to require DERs
to choose participation in either the RTO/ISO market or retail
compensation programs, but not both. How would such a limited opt-out
be implemented? What are the benefits and drawbacks of such an
approach?

Participation of DERs in RTO/ISO Markets (Panel 3)

    DERs can both sell services into the RTO/ISO markets and
participate in retail compensation programs. To ensure that that there
is no duplication of compensation for the same service, in the NOPR the
Commission proposed that individual DERs participating in one or more
retail compensation programs, such as net metering or another RTO/ISO
market participation program, will not be eligible to participate in
the RTO/ISO markets as part of a DER aggregation.\4\ In consideration
of comments received in response to the NOPR, the Commission seeks
additional information about potential solutions to challenges
associated with DER aggregations that provide multiple services,
including ways to avoid duplication of compensation for their services
in the RTO/ISO markets, potential ways for the RTOs/ISOs to place
appropriate restrictions on the services they can provide, and
procedures to ensure that DERs are not accounted for in ways that
affect efficient outcomes in the RTO/ISO markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. P 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on the following topics and questions that
were included in previous supplemental notices:
    1. Given the variety of wholesale and retail services, is it
possible to universally characterize a set of wholesale and retail
services as the ``same service''? If so, how could the Commission
prohibit a DER from providing the same service to the wholesale market
as it provides in a retail compensation program?
    2. In Order No. 719, the Commission stated that ``[a]n RTO or ISO
may place appropriate restrictions on any customer's participation in
an [aggregation of retail customers]-aggregated demand response bid to
avoid counting the same demand response resource more than once.'' \5\
How have the RTOs/ISOs effectuated this requirement or otherwise
ensured that demand response participating in their markets is not
being double counted? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of
taking this approach for DER aggregations instead of the approach
proposed in the NOPR for preventing double compensation for the same
service?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wholesale Competition in Regions with Organized Electric
Markets, Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,281, at P 158
(2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 719-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,292 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 719-B, 129 FERC ] 61,252
(2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. What other options besides the NOPR's proposed limits on dual
participation exist to address issues associated with the participation
of DERs or DER aggregations in one or more retail compensation programs
or another wholesale market participation program at the same time as
it participates in a wholesale DER aggregation? Is there a way to
coordinate DER participation in multiple markets or compensation
programs? Is a possible solution having a targeted prohibition, such as
the limitation placed on net-metered resources in CAISO? \6\ Are there
other means?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CAISO Tariff, Sec.  4.17.3(d).

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

Coordination of DER Aggregations Participating in RTO/ISO Markets
(Panel 6)

    In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to
revise its tariff to provide for coordination among itself, a DER
aggregator, and the relevant distribution utility or utilities when a
DER aggregator registers a new DER aggregation or modifies an existing
DER aggregation.\7\ The Commission proposed that this coordination
would provide the relevant distribution utility or utilities with the
opportunity to review the list of individual resources that are located
on their distribution system that enroll in a DER aggregation before
those resources may participate in RTO/ISO electric markets. In
consideration of comments received in response to the NOPR, the
Commission seeks additional information on the potential ways for RTOs/
ISOs, distribution utilities, retail regulatory authorities, and DER
aggregators to coordinate the integration of a DER aggregation into the
RTO/ISO markets. In addition, because the use of grid architecture \8\
can help identify the relationships among the entities involved in
coordinating the integration of DER aggregations, the Commission is
also interested in comments about potential architectural designs for
the initial coordination processes from the point of view of the RTO/
ISO markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,718 at P 154.
    \8\ As an aid to thinking about the electric power grid, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory and others have coined the term ``grid
architecture,'' which they define as the application of network
theory and control theory to a conceptual model of the electric
power grid that defines its structure, behavior, and essential
limits. See, e.g., https://gridarchitecture.pnnl.gov/. Expanding
upon this concept, some researchers have begun discussing different
types of ``grid architecture,'' which presumably differ in
structure, behavior or essential limits from current norms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on the following topics and questions that
were included in previous supplemental notices:
    1. If the Commission adopts its proposal to require the RTO/ISO to
allow a distribution utility to review the list of individual resources
that are located on their distribution system that enroll in a DER
aggregation before those resources may participate in RTO/ISO electric
markets, is it appropriate for distribution utilities to have a role in
determining when the individual DERs may begin participation? Should
the RTO/ISO tariff provide the distribution utility with the ability to
provide either binding or non-binding input to the RTO/ISO? Should the
RTO/ISO provide the distribution utility with a specific period of time
in which to consult before DERs may begin participation? Should the
Commission require the RTO/ISO to receive explicit consent from the
distribution utility before a DER is included in a DER aggregation? Are
there other approaches to coordinate with the distribution utility?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches?
    2. Are new processes and protocols needed to ensure coordination
among DER aggregators, distribution utilities, and RTOs/ISOs during
registration of a new DER aggregations? How can the Commission ensure
that any new processes and protocols occur in a way that provides
adequate transparency to the interested parties and also occurs on a
timely basis?
    3. Should there be a coordination agreement in place prior to the
participation of DER aggregation in RTO/ISO markets? Who should be
parties to this coordination agreement? How would the coordination
agreement be enforced?
    4. What is the best approach for involving retail regulatory
authorities in the registration of DER aggregations in the RTO/ISO
markets?
    5. What types of grid architecture could support the integration of
DER aggregations into the RTO/ISO markets? Knowing that a variety of
grid architectures are being explored in various regions, does it make
sense for the Commission to consider specific architectural
requirements for RTOs/ISOs for the effective integration and
coordination of DER aggregations?
    Based on the discussion at the April 10-11 Technical Conference,
comments are also requested on the following additional questions:
    6. During the technical conference, several panelists expressed the
need for criteria to evaluate the ability of an individual DER to
participate in a DER aggregation. What specific criteria should
distribution utilities use to evaluate the ability of a DER to
participate in an aggregation, and who should set these criteria?
    7. During the technical conference, several panelists expressed the
need for criteria to evaluate the ability of a DER aggregation to
participate in the RTO/ISO markets. What specific criteria should
distribution utilities use to evaluate the ability of a DER aggregation
to participate in the RTO/ISO markets, and who should set these
criteria?
    8. Some panelists suggested that the state and RTO/ISO
interconnection processes could provide the means to evaluate the
ability of a DER to participate in an RTO/ISO market. To the extent
that RTOs/ISOs currently have a process that applies to the
interconnection of DERs to Commission-jurisdictional transmission and
distribution facilities, please explain the process and criteria
evaluated, including referencing any relevant tariff or business
practice manual provisions.
    9. During the technical conference, panelists highlighted the
importance of coordination procedures and frameworks. Should
coordination frameworks for DER aggregation, particularly between RTOs/
ISOs and distribution utilities, be required or encouraged to be
developed between the appropriate entities?
    10. During the technical conference, some panelists commented on
the importance of specifying roles with regard to DER aggregation. What
should be the specific roles and responsibilities for distribution
utilities, DER aggregators, retail regulators, and RTOs/ISOs associated
with the participation of DER aggregators in RTO/ISO markets? Should
the Commission specify these roles?
    11. During the technical conference, several panelists discussed
the need to know the attributes of DERs on their distribution system.
Please describe, where applicable, what types of static and dynamic
information is currently being provided about aggregated or individual
DERs to distribution utilities and to RTOs/ISOs. Is there additional
static information about aggregated DERs or the individual DERs in
those aggregations that distribution utilities need that would not be
made available during the interconnection process? What, if any,
dynamic information would the distribution utility need from the RTO/
ISO in real time regarding DER aggregations that are participating in
the RTO/ISO markets, or the individual DERs in those aggregations? How
would the distribution utility use this static or dynamic information?
    12. As more DERs are added to the distribution system, the system
may become more variable due to the output of certain variable
resources such as wind and solar PV, and the operation of self-
scheduled resources such as batteries and electric vehicles. Given this
anticipated volatility at the distribution level, would the
participation of aggregations of these DERs in the RTO/ISO markets
further increase or decrease system variability?
    13. Do the safety and reliability concerns discussed at the
technical conference exist on distribution systems with high DER
penetration regardless of whether those resources are participating in
the RTO/ISO markets? What current standards, procedures, or other
measures are used to manage the safety and reliability of a
distribution

system with high DER penetration where those resources do not
participate in the RTO/ISO markets? Would these measures also help
manage the safety and reliability of a distribution system where these
resources do participate in the RTO/ISO markets? Would additional
safety and reliability measures be necessary if DERs participate in the
RTO/ISO markets, or would the current safeguards against backflows,
islanding, or other concerns adequately ensure safety and reliability?
If additional measures are necessary, what are they?

Ongoing Operational Coordination (Panel 7)

    In the NOPR, the Commission acknowledged that ongoing coordination
between the RTO/ISO, a DER aggregator, and the relevant distribution
utility or utilities may be necessary to ensure that the DER aggregator
is dispatching individual resources in a DER aggregation consistent
with the limitations of the distribution system.\9\ The Commission
proposed that each RTO/ISO revise its tariff to establish a process for
ongoing coordination, including operational coordination, among itself,
the DER aggregator, and the distribution utility to maximize the
availability of the DER aggregation consistent with the safe and
reliable operation of the distribution system. To help effectuate this
proposal, the Commission also proposed to require each RTO/ISO to
revise its tariff to require the DER aggregator to report to the RTO/
ISO any changes to its offered quantity and related distribution
factors that result from distribution line faults or outages. The
Commission also sought comment on the level of detail necessary in the
RTO/ISO tariffs to establish a framework for ongoing coordination
between the RTO/ISO, a DER aggregator, and the relevant distribution
utility or utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,718 at P 155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on the following topics and questions that
were included in previous supplemental notices:
    1. What real-time data acquisition and communication technologies
are currently in use to provide bulk power system operators with
visibility into the distribution system? Are they adequate to convey
the information necessary for transmission and distribution operators
to assess distribution system conditions in real time? Are new systems
or approaches needed? Does DER aggregation require separate or
additional capabilities and infrastructure for communication and
control?
    2. What processes/protocols do distribution utilities, transmission
operators, and DERs or DER aggregators use to coordinate with each
other? Are these processes/protocols capable of providing needed real-
time communications and coordination? What new processes, resources,
and efforts will be required to achieve effective real-time
coordination?
    3. What are the minimum set of specific RTO/ISO operational
protocols, performance standards, and market rules that should be
adopted now to ensure operational coordination for DER aggregation
participating in the RTO/ISO markets? What additional protocols may be
important for the future? Should the Commission adopt more prescriptive
requirements with respect to coordination than those proposed in the
NOPR? If so, what should the Commission require?
    4. Should distribution utilities be able to override RTO/ISO
decisions regarding day-ahead and real-time dispatch of DER
aggregations to resolve local distribution reliability issues? If so,
should DER aggregations nonetheless be subject to non-deliverability
penalties under such circumstances?
    5. Is it possible for DERs or DER aggregations participating in the
RTO/ISO markets to also be used to improve distribution system
operations and reliability? If so, please provide examples of how this
could be accomplished.
    6. Can real-time dispatch of aggregated DERs address distribution
constraints? If not, can tools be developed to accomplish this?
    7. Should individual DERs be required to have communications
capabilities to comply with control center obligations? What level of
communications security should be employed for these communications?
    8. How might recent and expected technical advancements be used to
enhance the coordination of DER aggregations, for example, integrating
Energy Management Systems (EMS) and Distribution Management Systems
(DMS) for efficient operational coordination?

[FR Doc. 2018-09455 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25519-25522]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8331]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
Part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region I

Massachusetts:
    Milton, Town of, Norfolk          250245  January 14, 1974,   June 9, 2014..........  June 9, 2014.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 3,
                                               1978, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Nantucket, Town of,               250230  January 21, 1974,   ......*do.............   Do.
     Nantucket County.                         Emerg; June 3,
                                               1986, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Quincy, City of, Norfolk          255219  June 19, 1970,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               21, 1973, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.

          Region III

Maryland:
    Betterton, Town of, Kent          240095  May 15, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               2, 1983, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Chestertown, Town of, Kent        240046  September 4, 1973,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               15, 1984, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Kent County,                      240045  March 9, 1973,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; December
                                               4, 1985, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Millington, Town of, Kent         240058  July 2, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; November
                                               3, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Rock Hall, Town of, Kent          240048  February 26, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               1, 1983, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
Pennsylvania:
    Clark, Borough of, Mercer         422475  July 11, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 30,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Coolspring, Township of,          421863  July 11, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; September
                                               17, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Delaware, Township of,            422283  June 1, 1976,       ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; July 30,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    East Lackawannock,                421864  March 22, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     Township of, Mercer                       Emerg; July 23,
     County.                                   1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Fairview, Township of,            421865  December 23, 1977,  ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; January 1,
                                               1987, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Farrell, City of, Mercer          420673  December 6, 1973,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 17,
                                               1978, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Findley, Township of,             421866  August 12, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; February
                                               4, 1983, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Fredonia, Borough of,             422477  May 9, 1975,        ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; November
                                               17, 1978, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    French Creek, Township of,        421867  February 17, 1977,  ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; June 1,
                                               1986, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Greene, Township of,              422478  October 17, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; June 30,
                                               1976, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Greenville, Borough of,           420674  August 23, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; July 16,
                                               1981, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Grove City, Borough of,           420675  February 5, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; September
                                               30, 1977, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Hermitage, City of, Mercer        421862  August 21, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               30, 1981, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Jackson Center, Borough           422479  July 25, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     of, Mercer County.                        Emerg; June 18,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Jackson, Township of,             422480  July 28, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; December
                                               19, 1980, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Jamestown, Borough of,            422481  February 18, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; September
                                               10, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Jefferson, Township of,           421869  February 11, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; June 1,
                                               1986, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Lackawannock, Township of,        422482  August 28, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; June 30,
                                               1976, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Lake, Township of, Mercer         422483  May 4, 1979,        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 18,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Liberty, Township of,             421870  March 3, 1977,      ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; June 1,
                                               1986, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Mercer, Borough of, Mercer        420676  May 12, 1972,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; March 15,
                                               1977, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Mill Creek, Township of,          421871  June 7, 1979,       ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; December
                                               17, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    New Lebanon, Borough of,          422484  September 27,       ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            1979, Emerg;
                                               September 10,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    New Vernon, Township of,          422485  September 7, 1979,  ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; October
                                               15, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.

    Otter Creek, Township of,         422486  June 2, 1976,       ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; December
                                               1, 1986, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Perry, Township of, Mercer        422487  April 14, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               17, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Pine, Township of, Mercer         422284  November 3, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               25, 1983, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Pymatuning, Township of,          422285  September 17,       ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            1975, Emerg; June
                                               1, 1989, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Salem, Township of, Mercer        421872  April 6, 1976,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 1,
                                               1986, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Sandy Creek, Township of,         421873  November 18, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; October 1,
                                               1986, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Sandy Lake, Borough of,           420677  August 1, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; March 18,
                                               1991, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Sharon, City of, Mercer           420678  November 19, 1973,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; October
                                               17, 1978, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Sharpsville, Borough of,          420682  March 11, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; May 25,
                                               1978, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Shenango, Township of,            421875  November 7, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; September
                                               4, 1991, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    South Pymatuning, Township        421876  July 28, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     of, Mercer County.                        Emerg; March 18,
                                               1991, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Springfield, Township of,         421877  July 2, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; July 16,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Stoneboro, Borough of,            420679  June 18, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; March 18,
                                               1991, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Sugar Grove, Township of,         422489  May 4, 1979,        ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; September
                                               17, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    West Middlesex, Borough           420680  February 19, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     of, Mercer County.                        Emerg; September
                                               4, 1991, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    West Salem, Township of,          422490  March 18, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; January
                                               21, 1983, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Wheatland, Borough of,            420681  February 15, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Mercer County.                            Emerg; February
                                               15, 1978, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Worth, Township of, Mercer        422492  July 31, 1979,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               4, 1983, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
           Region IV

Mississippi:
    Jackson, City of, Hinds,          280072  April 19, 1973,     ......do..............   Do.
     Madison and Rankin                        Emerg; April 1,
     Counties.                                 1980, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.

           Region V

Indiana:
    Anderson, City of, Madison        180150  November 7, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               4, 1979, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Austin, City of, Scott            180233  December 30, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               1, 1988, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Chesterfield, Town of,            180151  February 14, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Madison County.                           Emerg; May 1,
                                               1980, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Ingalls, Town of, Madison         180155  March 24, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 15,
                                               1988, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Madison County,                   180442  October 23, 1990,   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; February
                                               1, 1994, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Pendleton, Town of,               180156  December 26, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Madison County.                           Emerg; May 3,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Scott County,                     180474  March 5, 1993,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; November
                                               1, 1995, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Scottsburg, City of, Scott        180234  April 7, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 19,
                                               1985, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Sharpsville, Town of,             180527  June 19, 2007,      ......do..............   Do.
     Tipton County.                            Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Tipton, City of, Tipton           180255  October 29, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; March 5,
                                               1996, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Tipton County,                    180475  November 1, 1979,   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               1, 1988, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.

           Region VI

Texas:
    Harris County,                    480287  May 14, 1970,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; May 26,
                                               1970, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.

    Hilshire Village, City of,        480295  December 13, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Harris County.                            Emerg; June 28,
                                               1979, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Humble, City of, Harris           480297  October 25, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               16, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Hunter's Creek Village,           480298  November 27, 1973,  ......do..............   Do.
     City of, Harris County.                   Emerg; November
                                               5, 1980, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Jersey Village, City of,          480300  October 9, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Harris County.                            Emerg; March 15,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.
    Spring Valley Village,            480313  July 31, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     City of, Harris County.                   Emerg; June 4,
                                               1980, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.

          Region VII

Iowa:
    Riverdale, City of, Scott         190245  July 7, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January 5,
                                               1978, Reg; June
                                               9, 2014, Susp.

           Region IX

California:
    Vallejo, City of, Solano          060374  March 19, 1971,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; October
                                               17, 1978, Reg;
                                               June 9, 2014,
                                               Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: April 22, 2014.
David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-10158 Filed 5-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9718-9719]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4085-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

New York; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4085-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: December 18, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 30, 2012.

    Greene County for Public Assistance, including direct federal
assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans;
97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster
Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);
97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-03044 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47026]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19949]

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 180 / Monday September 17, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567; FRL-9983-59]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 28 chemical substances which
were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical
substances are subject to Orders issued by EPA pursuant to section 5(e)
of TSCA. This action would require persons who intend to manufacture
(defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 28
chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant
new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing
that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of
the intended use within the applicable review period. Persons may not
commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until
EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate
determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required
with that determination. In addition to this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-9232; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register. For further information about
the proposed significant new use rules, please see the information
provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is
located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this issue of the
Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 5, 2018.
Jeffery T. Morris,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018-19949 Filed 9-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P