APPENDIX B

Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose
Amendments to Current Rules of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2 CCR 404-1

Cause No. IR Docket No. 180900646
Hearing Process Rulemaking

This statement sets forth the basis, specific statutory authority, and purpose for amendments (“Pooling & Hearing Process Clean-Up Rules”) to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 2 CCR 404-1 (“Rules”). The Commission promulgated the Pooling & Hearing Process Clean-Up Rules on October 30, 2018.

In adopting amendments to the Rules, the Commission relied upon the entire administrative record for this Rulemaking proceeding, which formally began on July 29, 2018, when the Commission submitted its Notice of Rulemaking to the Colorado Secretary of State.

Background

On June 1, 2018, Governor Hickenlooper signed into law Senate Bill 18-230, which among other things, modifies the laws governing pooling orders that apply to nonconsenting mineral interest owners. As a result of the adoption of Senate Bill 18- 230, the Commission must revise Rule 530. Additionally, the Commission identified revisions to other 500-Series Rules that are designed to facilitate and make more efficient and effective the Hearings Unit’s internal processes.

Stakeholder and Public Participation

On July 3, 2018, the Commission issued a timeline to implement changes to the 500 Series Rules. The timeline announced stakeholder meetings on July 12, 2018 and August 9, 2018. The Commission encouraged public participation in the Rulemaking by allowing the public to comment on the proposed rules in advance of or during the hearing. Persons or organizations desiring to do so could also participate in the Rulemaking as a party. Parties could submit prehearing statements and comments, including alternative rules or amendments, and respond to the prehearing statements and comments submitted by other parties.

Statutory Authority

The Commission’s authority to promulgate amendments to the Rules is derived from the following sections of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act (“Act”), §§ 34- 60- 101 - 130, C.R.S., including:

•	§ 34-60-105(1), C.R.S. (Commission has the power to make and enforce rules necessary to enforce the Act);

•	§ 34-60-108, C.R.S. (Commission has authority to adopt rules governing practice and procedure before it);

•	§ 34-60-106(6), C.R.S (Commission has the authority to conduct hearings or to make any determinations empowered to under the Act); and

•	§ 34-60-116(7), C.R.S. (Commission has authority to enter pooling orders, including orders governing nonconsenting owners).

Identification of New and Amended Rules

Consistent with its statutory authority and its legislative mandates, and in accord with the administrative record, the Commission added or amended the following Rules:

•	100-Series Rules: definition of Relevant Local Government.

•	500-Series Rules: 501, 503, 504, 506, 507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 519, 522, 528, and 530; and

•	The Commission also adopted conforming or clarifying changes to the 500-Series Rules: 502, 505, 508, 513, 515, 516, 517, 518, 520, 521, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, and 529.

Overview of Purpose and Intent

Under § 34-60-116, C.R.S, consenting and nonconsenting mineral owners must pay their proportionate share of the costs of development of an oil and gas well, and are eligible to receive their proportionate share of the revenues within an established drilling and spacing unit. When an owner declines to consent  to  pool  their ownership interest with other owners in a unit, the Commission can order the mineral interests be statutorily pooled pursuant to § 34-60-116, C.R.S. Commission Rule 530 sets forth the application procedure for pooling nonconsenting mineral interest owners pursuant to §34-60-116, C.R.S.

Senate Bill 18-230 made several material amendments to §34-60-116, C.R.S. First, it added the provision that nonconsenting mineral owners are immune from liability for costs that result from a spill, damage or injury from an oil and gas well from which their minerals are being produced.  §34-60-116(7) (a) (III), C.R.S.  Second, Senate Bill 18-230 requires that before the Commission enters a pooling order that includes a nonconsenting mineral interest owner, at least 60-days prior to the hearing on the order the nonconsenting owner must have been provided a reasonable offer to lease their minerals, along with a brochure prepared by the Commission that explains pooling. §34-60-116 (7)(d)(I), C.R.S. Through amendments to the 500 Series Rules, the Commission can implement Senate Bill 18-230. A copy of the Commission’s current pooling brochure is attached as Appendix 1.  Additionally, the Commission identified clean-up revisions to other 500-Series Rules that are designed to facilitate and make more efficient and effective the Hearings Unit’s internal processes, including facilitating an electronic filing system. The clean-up revisions also make the Commission Rules easier to understand.  For example, all “shalls” were changed to “wills” to conform with more recent rules.

Amendments and Additions to Rules
100-Series Rules: New Definition
The Commission added the definition “Relevant Local Government” for clarity regarding hearing participation.  Relevant local governments are those governments “with land use authority over” lands in an application pending before the Commission. 

Rule 501.

Rule 501.b. was revised to specify that the Commission or Director may restrict discovery in matters where there is an abuse of process by a party. Rule 501.c. clarifies that timing for filing an appeal of a Commission decision is governed by the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act.

Rule 503.

Rule 503.a. was revised to make necessary procedural changes to facilitate the future implementation of an electronic filing system. 

Rule 503.b.(2) was amended to clarify that “owners” within a unit may file an application for involuntary pooling. Referring to “owner” in Rule 503.b.(2), provides consistency between Rules 503.b. and 530 when describing who may file an application for involuntary pooling. Rule 503.b.(2) was also amended to incorporate the provisions of 503.b.(3) to simplify the rules.

Revisions to Rule 503.b.(9) were made to clarify and affirm existing legal requirements that only those who have a legally protected interest entitled to protection under the Act may seek relief from the Commission and conform language to that in Rule 509. The amendment to Rule 503.b.(9) does not change the standing requirements that a person must meet in order to avail themselves of Rule 503.b.(9). The Colorado Supreme Court in Romer v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Cty. of Pueblo, Colo., 956 P.2d 566, 577 (Colo. 1998), held that legal rights are created by statutory language, an agency’s rules, or through the constitution. Consistent with Romer, an injury to a legal right that comes from the Act or Commission Rules must be alleged for someone to avail themselves of the relief provided under Rule 503.b.(9). 

Rule 503.c. clarifies that an amended application is due when a material change is made to an original application after notice of the original application has been sent. Examples of material changes include, but are not limited to:
	
-if the amended application alters the relief requested in the original application, such as increasing the number of wells requested in an application for increased well density.
	
-if a change to the application would result in adding or deleting parties who are entitled to notice.

-if a change in application would require consultation with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife or Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Additionally, if upon review of a change to an application the Secretary determines that the change made is material, the Secretary will require the application be amended.

Submission of a corrected application will not require a change of the hearing date if the operator has not sent the notice of hearing on the application to interested persons. Only if the notice of hearing on the application has been sent to interested persons, will submission of an amended application result in the hearing date being continued to a future date.   

Further, if an operator notices an application for hearing to persons whose interests the operator later determines are not the subject of the application, the operator does not need to re-notice the application. However, the operator must send to those persons whose interests are no longer subject of the application a letter notifying them that they were improperly noticed and do not need to attend the hearing.

Rule 503.d. provided that applicants must submit to the Commission a certificate of service demonstrating that service of the application was made on all persons entitled to notice. The provisions of Rule 503.d. were incorporated into Rule 507.a.(2), which addresses the notice requirements for applications filed with the Commission. 

Similarly, the provisions of Rule 503.e. were incorporated in to Rule 507.a.(2). Rule 503.e. provided that the applicant will enjoy a rebuttable presumption that they served notice of the application on all persons entitled to notice. The provisions of Rule 503.e. were incorporated into Rule 507.a.(2) so that the notice requirements are set forth in one section of the Rules.

Rule 504.

Rule 504 was revised to make necessary procedural changes to facilitate the future implementation of an electronic filing system and to more clearly describe the process for assigning docket numbers, and explaining when docket numbers must be used.

Rule 506.

Rule 506 was revised to make necessary procedural changes to facilitate the future implementation of an electronic filing system. These revisions include requiring applications to be filed no later than 90-days in advance of the hearing date at which it is proposed to be considered. Requiring applications to be filed 90-days prior to the proposed hearing date provides the Commission with ample time to process applications. It also provides staff and parties more time to ensure that the applications are complete and can promptly proceed to hearing without a continuance. 

Also, a 90-day deadline for applications facilitates the implementation of changes imposed by Senate Bill 18-230 for pooling. Though Senate Bill 18-230 only affected pooling, creating more than one application filing deadline for pooling applications and all other applications would be inefficient and difficult to administer.

Rule 506.c. provides that the Director may, for good cause, continue a hearing to a future date. Similarly, the Rule was amended to provide that in addition to the Commission, the Director or a hearing officer may direct that additional time be allowed for filing deadlines. 

Finally, under Rule 506, the Secretary has the discretion to bring to hearing or dismiss applications that have been repeatedly continued. If an applicant objects to proceeding to hearing, the Secretary has the discretion to dismiss the application at the discretion of the Commission or Director.

Rule 507.

The Commission revised Rule 507 to eliminate the requirement that interested parties serve a copy of the application separately from service of notice of hearing on the application. Rule 507 now requires applicants to serve interested parties only once with a copy of the application and a copy of the notice of when that application will be heard. 

Additionally, the Commission’s offices will no longer be used as the return mailing address for hearing notices. Historically, the Commission sent out the notice of hearings and all returned mailings would come to the Commission. In recent years, changes to Commission rules delegated responsibility to applicants for mailing the notices of hearing; however the return mailing address remained the Commission’s offices. Applicants will continue to be responsible for mailing out notices of hearing for their applications, and will provide their business address or the address of their legal counsel as the return address for all returned mail.  This change informs applicants as to whether their addresses for interested persons is accurate and to follow up accordingly.

In its Prehearing Statement, the Colorado State Land Board (“State Land Board”), requested that Rule 507 require applicants provide the State Land Board with copies of applications that affect minerals owned by the State Land Board. The State Land Board noted that frequently it does not receive copies of applications that impact its minerals, or will be made aware of an application too late in the process to file a protest or seek intervention. In making this request, the State Land Board noted that Rule 507.c. provides that local governments, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife must receive copies of applications submitted under 507.b.(1) and (3). The Commission agrees that providing the State Land Board with copies of applications that include minerals it owns will ensure that the State Land Board has the opportunity to participate in Commission proceedings.

The State Land Board also requested an amendment to Rule 507 that would have ensured it receive copies of any Notice of Alleged Violation (“NOAV”) that affects lands it owns. Rule 523.b.(2)B. provides that when an operator is issued an NOAV that “result[s] in actual or threatened adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare, including the environment and wildlife resources…”, the operator must “notify[] affected landowners, local governments, and other persons or businesses ….” The provision of Rule 523.b.(2)B. addresses the concern that State Land Board sought to remedy in its proposed amendment to Rule 507.

Rule 508.
In their prehearing statements, Adams County and Allied Local Governments proposed amendments to the Local Public Forum Rules. These proposed changes included changing the threshold number of proposed wells that would result in a Local Public Forum. The changes proposed by Adams County and Allied Local Governments are beyond the scope of this noticed rulemaking. The Notice of Rulemaking filed with the Secretary of State on July 29, 2018, stated that the amendments to be considered were directly related to the statutory changes made by Senate Bill 18-230 and to streamline the Commission’s application process. The scope of the changes proposed for Rule 508 are beyond the limited purpose of the rulemaking noticed for hearing and therefore cannot be considered. However, the Commissioners directed staff to convene stakeholder meetings regarding potential changes to the Rule and present to the Commission in early 2019.
 
Rule 509.

Rule 509 was revised to make necessary procedural changes to facilitate the future implementation of an electronic filing system. 

The amendments to Rule 509.a.(1) clarify and streamline the Commission’s existing Rules regarding who may protest or intervene in a hearing. Rule 509.a.(1) describes what is an affected interest for purposes of filing a protest, or intervention. To aid members of the public who may be unfamiliar with the Commission’s Rules, Rule 509.a.(1)A. restates the Commission’s definition of a Protestant. The Commission defines a “Protestant” as the person who “would be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the Commission’s ruling in the proceeding, and that any injury or threat of injury sustained would be entitled to legal protection under the act.” 100 Series Definitions. Rule 509.a.(1)A. was also amended to include the language contained in Rule 509.c. that provides a person determined not to be a protestant may still provide a statement to the Commission under Rule 510.

American Petroleum Institute raised a concern that an earlier version of the proposed amendment to Rule 509.a.(1)A. may inadvertently result in expanding the class of persons who may protest applications. The Commission’s amendments to Rule 509.a.(1)A. are not intended to expand the class of persons that may intervene in proceedings before the Commission. The amendments adopted seek solely to provide greater clarity to the public that to protest an application, the person must be able to demonstrate that not only will they be “directly and adversely affected,” but that they are also entitled to legal protection under the Act. 

The language in Rule 509.a.(1)B. was amended to clearly provide that intervention by right will be granted to the relevant local government with land use authority over the lands that are the subject of an application.  Rule 509.a.(1)B. previously required the local government to make a showing that it had concerns related to public health, safety, and welfare, including the environment and wildlife resources to be granted intervention by right. The amended Rule 509.a.(1)B. recognizes that the relevant local government is entitled to intervene by right so long as the application lands are within its jurisdiction.

However, the Commission expects that relevant local governments, like any party, will seek intervention only in circumstances where their interests are affected or harmed, and where the Commission has jurisdiction to hear and grant the relief sought. For instance, a relevant local government would be discouraged from seeking intervention in a spacing application when the Commission does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested as part of a spacing application. 

The 100 Series defines “intervenor” as “a local government, or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment intervening solely to raise environmental or public health, safety and welfare concerns, or the Colorado Parks and Wildlife intervening solely to raise wildlife resource concerns, in which case the intervention shall be granted of right….” (emphasis added). Rule 509.a.(1)B. provides that a relevant local government no longer needs to intervene solely to raise environmental or public health, safety and welfare concerns. 

The 100 Series definition of “intervenor” also provides that “a person who … has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that the intervention will serve the public interest,” Commission may in its discretion grant permissive intervention. In their prehearing statement, Adams County and Allied Local Governments requested that Rule 509.a.(1)B. be amended to provide that “any affected local government” may intervene by right in a hearing on an application. Adams County and Allied Local Governments argue such an amendment is necessary to allow local governments that are affected by oil and gas developments in neighboring jurisdictions to intervene by right. However, such an amendment would be inconsistent with the Commission’s definition of “intervenor.” Adoption of Adams County and Allied Local Governments proposal would result in amending the definition of intervenor, which is beyond the scope of the Notice of Rulemaking Hearing. 

Further, in considering Adams County and Allied Local Governments position, the Commission recognized that the local government with land use authority over a proposed oil and gas development is uniquely qualified to bring to the Commission’s attention concerns it has with a proposed development’s impact on lands within that local government’s jurisdiction. The Commission recognizes that there are situations where a neighboring local government may determine that impacts to it and its residents are significant and need to be brought before the Commission. In those circumstances, an affected local government may, under Rule 509.a.(1)B.ii., file an application to intervene permissibly in order to “serve the public interest.” 

Finally, parties asked that the Commission impose a 5:00p.m. deadline for all filings.  This is a decision reserved for a hearing officer based on the circumstances of each matter and can be addressed in the Case Management Order.

Rule 511.

Rule 511 was revised to make necessary procedural changes to facilitate the future implementation of an electronic filing system. Rule 511.c. was amended to require that no less than 30-days prior to the hearing date applicants must submit the documents required under Rule 511.d. to substantiate an application to the Commission. Rule 511.c. had required that all such documents be provided no less than 21-days prior to the hearing. 

Rule 512.

Rule 512 was amended to allow the Commission Chair, in the course of a hearing, to delegate to its legal counsel the responsibility of administering oaths to witnesses. 
  
Rule 519

Rule 519 provides that the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure will not be applied in Commission proceedings when they are inconsistent with Commission Rules or the Act. Rule 519 is amended to provide, consistent with Weiss v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Colorado State Patrol, 847 P.2d 197, 199 (Colo. App. 1992), a hearing officer will apply the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure unless they are inconsistent with Commission Rules or the Act. 

Rule 522.

The Complainant provisions of Rule 522 were revised to clarify and reflect the process by which complaints lead to Notice of Alleged Violations (NOAVs). Rule 522.b.(2) was revised to clarify that the Director will investigate all complaints for which there is sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation. Rule 522.b.(3) was revised to acknowledge that only NOAVs issued for violations specifically alleged by a person will result in that person becoming a Complainant vested with the rights and responsibilities set forth in Rule 522.b. If an NOAV is issued for something other than what a person alleges to have occurred, that person will not be a Complainant under Rule 522.b.

Rule 522.b.(5) was revised to clarify that when a Complainant files a Petition for Review and  requests  a continuance of the hearing on the Petition for Review, the request for a continuance must be based on “actual, compelling evidence.” Moreover, the actual, compelling evidence must be gathered by the Complainant after issuance of the Director’s decision that is at issue in the Petition for Review. The Commission wishes to expeditiously address Petitions for Review, and for a continuance of a hearing on a Petition for Review to be granted there must exist evidence that was not before the Director when the decision was issued that would warrant delay in proceeding to hearing.

Rule 522.d. was revised to specify what the Commission requires operators to include in an answer to an NOAV. 

Rule 523.

The Commission has the authority to increase a penalty up to the statutory maximum if it finds that certain aggravating factors existed. The Commission determined that a violation of Commission Rules resulting in serious injury or death should be an aggravating factor. Rule 523.c.(3) was amended to add serious injury or death as an aggravating factor. 

Additionally, Rule 523.g. was amended to provide that payment of a penalty imposed by the Commission must be in certified funds. The Commission has had instances where operators paid a penalty with a check, but had insufficient funds in the account that the check was drawn from.  

Rule 528

Rule 528.g. was revised to make necessary procedural changes to facilitate the future implementation of an electronic filing system. Rule 528.g. was amended to clarify that for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, orders are final upon the later of electronic service or the date of mailing. Only if a party does not have access to electronic service will an order be sent to that party via mail. Should an order be served electronically and by mail, Staff will endeavor to complete service on the same day. This amendment solely relates to the effective date for purposes of judicial review. It does not alter the date upon which Commission orders are effective and enforceable, which has been and remains the day the order is approved by the Commission. 

Rule 530.

Rule 530 was amended to implement Senate Bill 18-230. Rule 530 now requires operators to provide evidence to the Commission that all owners were provided a reasonable offer to lease or participate 90-days prior to the hearing. Rule 530 was also revised to provide that an owner will be considered a nonconsenting mineral owner if after at least 60-days written notice of being tendered an offer to participate or lease the owner does not elect in writing to participate or lease. Rule 530 previously provided that an owner will be considered a nonconsenting mineral owner after 35-days written notice. 

The City of Boulder proposed amendments to Rule 530 that would have required operators to negotiate leases in good faith with mineral owners. The City of Boulder asserts that when operators send mineral owners offers to lease concurrent with sending notice that it has filed an involuntary pooling application, operators are not negotiating in good faith. As with all Commission Rules, operators and owners are expected to act in good faith. The Commission expects operators to negotiate with mineral owners in good faith. If a mineral owner brings evidence to the Commission that an operator has failed to do so, such evidence will be considered in the course of the Commission’s review of the application at hearing.  

Rule 530 incorporates Section 116’s requirement that a mineral owner was “tendered a reasonable offer to lease or participate.” Section 116 does not discuss good faith negotiations. Moreover, while some operators may provide mineral owners with a lease concurrent with an involuntary pooling application, doing so does not mean that future lease negotiations will not be conducted in good faith. 

In amending Rule 530, the Commission was required to promulgate a rule that is consistent with the provisions of § 34-60-116(7)(d)(I), C.R.S. Section 106(7)(d)(I) provides in part that the Commission must receive “evidence that the unleased mineral owner has been tendered, no less than sixty days before the hearing, a reasonable offer to lease upon terms no less favorable than those currently prevailing in the area.” In carrying out the provisions of Senate Bill 18-230, the Commission will not proceed to hearing on a protested involuntary pooling application unless a mineral owner has had sixty days to consider the offer to participate or lease. Based on the amended timelines, the thirty-day protest period now follows the sixty day review period. Meaning a mineral owner may file their protest to an involuntary pooling application, in accordance with Rule 509.a.(2), after the sixty-day review period has run. If a valid protest is received less than thirty days prior to the scheduled involuntary pooling hearing date, the matter may be continued to the following scheduled hearing. 

Mineral owners must be diligent in promptly filing a protest after their sixty-day review period has terminated. The Commission recognizes the time and effort that is expended to prepare and file a protest. However, the Commission must ensure that applications are acted on efficiently, and unnecessary or unwarranted delays in filing a protest will be looked on with disfavor.

The Commission expects mineral owners to receive sixty-days to review an offer to lease or participate. If a mineral owner comes before the Commission and demonstrates that they were not afforded the full sixty-days before the application proceeded to Commission hearing, the application will be continued to the next hearing cycle. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a mineral owner may file a protest of the application at any time during the sixty-day review period. 

Minimum Percentage Ownership Requirements

In their prehearing statements Adams County and Allied Local Governments proposed that Rule 530 be amended to establish a minimum 51% ownership interest in the lands sought to be involuntarily pooled in order to file an application. The Act prohibits the Commission from setting a minimum percentage ownership requirement. “The commission, upon the application of any interested person, may enter an order pooling all interests . . . .” § 34-60-116(6), C.R.S. (emphasis added). Not only would the proposed amendment violate the Act, it would disadvantage small mineral interest owners. Because the Act authorizes “any interested person” to file an application for involuntary pooling, it empowers small percentage owners to seek pooling and to be paid for their minerals that another owner is draining.  

Demonstration of a “Reasonable Offer”

Adams County proposed that Rule 530 be amended to require operators to include with their involuntary pooling application evidence of no less than ten lease offers accepted within the drilling unit. Adams County’s proposal is inconsistent with the Act. The Act provides that a pooling order may only be entered upon “evidence that the unleased mineral owner has been tendered . . . a reasonable offer to lease upon terms no less favorable than those currently prevailing in the area at the time application for the order is made.” § 34-60-116(7)(d)(I), C.R.S. The Act does not require a certain number of leases be provided to evidence that a “reasonable offer to lease” has been made. An operator must make a prima facie demonstration that an offer to lease or participate was reasonable. Once the operator has made such a demonstration, the mineral owner must show why the offer was not reasonable. 

To show that an offer was not reasonable, a mineral owner may provide the Commission with copies of leases in the unit and for all cornering and contiguous units that are under the proposed lease. A mineral owner may also provide copies of lease offers to mineral owners in the area. The Commission would also accept testimony from lessors in the area as to the terms of their leases to support the mineral owners’ argument that the lease offer was not reasonable.

The Commission may also take into consideration 1) how many offers to lease in the unit were accepted; 2) the percentage of the unit that is leased at the time of hearing on the application; 3) the operators responsiveness to inquiries from mineral owners; 4) costs of the development and the proposed timeframe for completion; and 5) whether the operator has undertaken reasonable due diligence to identify and locate owners within the unit. This is not an exhaustive list of items that the Commission may consider when determining whether an offer to lease was reasonable. 

Finally, in the course of the hearing process, a mineral owner may request to serve discovery upon the operator so as to gather evidence that an offer made was not reasonable.  It is within the Hearing Officer’s discretion whether to allow, limit, or disallow such discovery, per Rule 519.

Evidence of Mineral Ownership in Drilling Units

Allied Local Governments’ prehearing statement requested that several Commission Rules be amended to require that operators supply duplicates of oil and gas leases to support applications for involuntary pooling and drilling units. Evidence of ownership of mineral interests is required only when that ownership is challenged. If evidence of mineral ownership is challenged, the Commission will consider the evidence brought by the mineral owner and determine whether it is sufficient to substantiate ownership. 

Effective Date

The Commission adopted the proposed amendments, which added to and amended Rules 501, 503, 504, 506, 507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 519, 522, 528, and 530, at its hearing on October 30, 2018, in Cause No. 1R, Docket No. 180900646. The amendments to most rules will become effective, per § 24-4-103, C.R.S., twenty days after publication in the Colorado Register. Any revision that alters the timing of submission of applications or other documents to the Commission, or that implement the electronic filing system, will become effective for the April 2019 hearing cycle. Thus applications for that cycle will be due on February 28, 2019.