Federal Register Vol. 82, No.100,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 100 (May 25, 2017)

Page Range23999-24207
FR Document

82_FR_100
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 24128 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Board Member MeetingPDF
82 FR 24151 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 24147 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 24071 - Isopyrazam; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 24062 - Flazasulfuron; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 24119 - Environmental Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 24096 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
82 FR 24103 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From the Republic of Korea: Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 24113 - Registration Review; Neonicotinoid Risk Assessments; Summary Response to Comments, and Updated Neonicotinoid Work Schedule; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 24117 - Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment(s), and Final Tetrachlorvinphos Occupational and Residential Exposure Risk Assessment, and the Agency's Decision To Rely on Data From Human Health Research; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 24114 - Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessments; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 24067 - Fenazaquin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 24167 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24169 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 24201 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-Between Mansfield and Bloomington, in McLean, Dewitt and Piatt Counties, Ill.PDF
82 FR 24205 - Michelin North America, Inc., Mootness of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
82 FR 24204 - DRV, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
82 FR 24203 - BMW of North America, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
82 FR 24146 - Josip Pasic, M.D.; OrderPDF
82 FR 24048 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 24009 - Safety Management System for Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holders; Technical AmendmentPDF
82 FR 24146 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection; Federal Firearms License (FFL) RENEWAL Application-ATF F 8 (5310.11) Part 11PDF
82 FR 24145 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection; Federal Firearms Licensee Firearms Inventory Theft/Loss Report-ATF F 3310.11PDF
82 FR 24130 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget ApprovalsPDF
82 FR 24137 - Protecting Our Infants Act Report to Congress: Summary of Public Comment and Final StrategyPDF
82 FR 24138 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24108 - Meeting of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 24168 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 24200 - Meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business DevelopmentPDF
82 FR 24127 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24106 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 24106 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016PDF
82 FR 24167 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 24166 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 24124 - Filing Dates for the Alabama Senate Special ElectionsPDF
82 FR 24207 - Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee; Notice of EstablishmentPDF
82 FR 24141 - U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (USEITI) Advisory Committee; Postponement of MeetingPDF
82 FR 24201 - Grupo México, S.A.B. de C.V. and GMéxico Transportes, S.A. de C.V.-Control Exemption-Florida East Coast Holdings Corp.PDF
82 FR 24109 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Request for NominationsPDF
82 FR 24144 - Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam; DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 24131 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Prior Notice of Imported Food Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002PDF
82 FR 24136 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget ApprovalsPDF
82 FR 24133 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Channels of Trade Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide Chemicals, for Which Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified by the Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary Risk ConsiderationsPDF
82 FR 24143 - Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 24107 - Notice of Availability of a Record of DecisionPDF
82 FR 24109 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 24056 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone-Bay Swim XPDF
82 FR 24054 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Petaluma River, Haystack Landing, CAPDF
82 FR 24092 - Pacific Island Fisheries; 2017-18 Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 BottomfishPDF
82 FR 24086 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2017; Recreational Management MeasuresPDF
82 FR 24139 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0093; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-Management AuthorityPDF
82 FR 24054 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis, MOPDF
82 FR 24199 - Idaho Disaster #ID-00067PDF
82 FR 24199 - California Disaster Number CA-00267PDF
82 FR 24076 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
82 FR 24136 - National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors; Announcement of Meeting; Request for Comments; Amended NoticePDF
82 FR 24078 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Black Sea Bass Fishery; Revised 2017 and Projected 2018 SpecificationsPDF
82 FR 24202 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
82 FR 24173 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Listing Standards for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies To Modify the Initial and Continued Distribution RequirementsPDF
82 FR 24177 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Enhance the Credit Risk Rating Matrix and Make Other ChangesPDF
82 FR 24174 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection to Advance Notices To Enhance the Credit Risk Rating Matrix and Make Other ChangesPDF
82 FR 24180 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the GraniteShares Gold Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201PDF
82 FR 24185 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201PDF
82 FR 24171 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BZX Rule 14.11, Other Securities, To Provide for the Inclusion of Cash in an Index Underlying a Series of Index Fund SharesPDF
82 FR 24200 - Notice of Receipt of Express Pipeline LLC (Express US) Notification for Maintaining a Presidential Permit to Operate and Maintain Pipeline Facilities on the Border of the United States and CanadaPDF
82 FR 24206 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8867PDF
82 FR 24128 - Medicare Program: Announcement of the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (the Panel) Meeting on August 21-22, 2017PDF
82 FR 24111 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Report of Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility ProgramPDF
82 FR 24167 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
82 FR 24082 - Minimum Quality and Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the United States; Change to the Quality and Handling RequirementsPDF
82 FR 24001 - Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for the 2017-2018 Marketing YearPDF
82 FR 23999 - Changes to Reporting and Notification Requirements and Other Clarifying Changes for Imported Fruits, Vegetables, and Specialty CropsPDF
82 FR 24080 - Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin; Modification of Allocation of AssessmentsPDF
82 FR 23999 - Asian Longhorned Beetle: Update List of Regulated ArticlesPDF
82 FR 24095 - United States Standards for Grades of CauliflowerPDF
82 FR 24120 - Request for Nominations of Experts to the EPA Office of Research and Development's Board of Scientific CounselorsPDF
82 FR 24116 - Registration Review Interim Decisions; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 24122 - Registration Review Proposed Decisions for Boric Acid/Sodium Salts, Clethodim, Diquat Dibromide, Ethephon, Fenitrothion, Hexazinone, Hymexazol, Methoxyfenozide, Pronamide, and Trimedlure; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 24112 - Registration Review Proposed Interm Decisions for Aldicarb, Azoxystrobin, Bifenazate, Chlorpyrifos-methyl, Ethalfluralin, and Pirimiphos-methyl; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 24123 - Registration Review Interim Decisions and Case Closures; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 24142 - Petitions for Duty Suspensions and Reductions: Notice That the Commission Will Accept Additional Comments Through Its Web Site Relating to Certain Petitions Included in Its Preliminary Report to the CongressPDF
82 FR 24169 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 24033 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 24202 - Meeting of the Regional Resource Stewardship CouncilPDF
82 FR 24030 - Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24045 - Airworthiness Directives; Slingsby Aviation Ltd. AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24015 - Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH GlidersPDF
82 FR 24022 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24027 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24013 - Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24020 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24039 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24017 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24010 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24035 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24025 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24043 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24085 - Air Plan Approval; NH; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Program Revisions; Public Hearing Revisions for State Permitting Programs; Withdrawal of Permit Fee Program; Infrastructure Provisions for National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
82 FR 24057 - Air Plan Approval; NH; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Program Revisions; Public Hearing Revisions for State Permitting Programs; Withdrawal of Permit Fee Program; Infrastructure Provisions for National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF

Issue

82 100 Thursday, May 25, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Changes to Reporting and Notification Requirements and Other Clarifying Changes for Imported Fruits, Vegetables, and Specialty Crops, 23999-24001 2017-10678 Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in Far West: Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for 2017-2018 Marketing Year; Marketing Orders, 24001-24009 2017-10679 PROPOSED RULES Quality and Handling Requirements: Minimum Quality and Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in United States, 24082-24085 2017-10680 Tart Cherries Grown in States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin: Allocation of Assessments; Modifications, 24080-24082 2017-10677 NOTICES U.S. Grade Standards: Cauliflower, 24095-24096 2017-10674 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Firearms License RENEWAL Application, 24146 2017-10738 Federal Firearms Licensee Firearms Inventory Theft/Loss Report, 24145 2017-10737 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Regulated Articles: Asian Longhorned Beetle, 23999 2017-10675 Army Army Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, 24109 2017-10716 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Meetings: Medicare Program: Announcement of Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment, 24128-24130 2017-10683 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Petaluma River, Haystack Landing, CA, 24054 2017-10705 Safety Zones: Annual Events in Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone—Bay Swim X, 24056 2017-10706 Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis, MO, 24054-24056 2017-10701 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Meetings: Government-Industry Advisory Panel, 24109-24111 2017-10707
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Josip Pasic, M.D., 24146-24147 2017-10742 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Report of Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program, 24111 2017-10682 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Hampshire; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Program Revisions; etc., 24057-24062 2017-09536 Pesticide Tolerances: Fenazaquin, 24067-24071 2017-10751 Flazasulfuron, 24062-24067 2017-10763 Isopyrazam, 24071-24076 2017-10765 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Hampshire; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Program Revisions; etc., 24085-24086 2017-09538 NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Modeling, 24119-24120 2017-10760 Registration Reviews: 2-(Decylthio)ethanamine Hydrochloride, DTEA-HCl; Aliphatic Alcohols, C1-C5; Bentazon; Chlorfenapyr; Propoxur; Propoxycarbazone-sodium; Sodium Acifluorfen; and Thidiazuron, 24116-24117 2017-10671 Aldicarb, Azoxystrobin, Bifenazate, Chlorpyrifos-methyl, Ethalfluralin, and Pirimiphos-methyl; Interm Decisions, 24112-24113 2017-10669 Boric Acid/Sodium Salts, Clethodim, Diquat Dibromide, Ethephon, Fenitrothion, Hexazinone, Hymexazol, Methoxyfenozide, Pronamide, and Trimedlure, 24122-24123 2017-10670 Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment(s), and Final Tetrachlorvinphos Occupational and Residential Exposure Risk Assessment, and decision to rely on data from human health research, 24117-24119 2017-10754 Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessments, 24114-24116 2017-10753 Interim Decisions and Case Closures, 24123-24124 2017-10668 Neonicotinoid Risk Assessments; Summary Response to Comments, and Updated Neonicotinoid Work Schedule, 24113-24114 2017-10755 Requests for Nominations: Office of Research and Development's Board of Scientific Counselors, 24120-24122 2017-10672 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 24017-24020, 24027-24030, 24035-24045 2017-10264 2017-10266 2017-10281 2017-10282 2017-10285 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes, 24010-24013 2017-10267 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 24022-24025 2017-10339 DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders, 24015-24017 2017-10392 Embraer S.A. Airplanes, 24013-24015 2017-10284 Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes, 24030-24033 2017-10407 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd and Co KG Turbofan Engines, 24033-24035 2017-10438 Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Airplanes, 24045-24048 2017-10403 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 24020-24022, 24025-24027 2017-10265 2017-10283 Instrument Flight Rules Altitudes: Miscellaneous Amendments, 24048-24053 2017-10741 Safety Management System for Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holders: Technical Amendment, 24009-24010 2017-10739 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries, 24202-24203 2017-10692 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Filing Dates: Alabama Senate Special Elections, 24124-24127 2017-10722 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 24076-24078 2017-10697 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24127-24128 2017-10728 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24128 2017-10929 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Management Authority, 24139-24141 2017-10702 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24130-24131, 24136 2017-10711 2017-10736 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Channels of Trade Policy for Commodities with Residues of Pesticide Chemicals, for which Tolerances have been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Dietary Risk Considerations, 24133-24136 2017-10710 Prior Notice of Imported Food under Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, 24131-24133 2017-10712 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Advisory Committee, 24141-24142 2017-10720
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24206-24207 2017-10684 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, 24096-24103 2017-10757 Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Republic of Korea, 24103-24105 2017-10756 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 24106 2017-10726 Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 24106-24107 2017-10725 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, 24144-24145 2017-10715 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 24143-24144 2017-10709 Petitions: Duty Suspensions and Reductions, 24142-24143 2017-10667 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Parole Commission

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 24147-24166 2017-10780 2017-10781
National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: BMW of North America, LLC, 24203-24204 2017-10743 DRV, LLC, 24204-24205 2017-10744 Michelin North America, Inc., 24205-24206 2017-10745 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors, 24136 2017-10695 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of Northeastern United States: Black Sea Bass Fishery; Revised 2017 and Projected 2018 Specifications, 24078-24079 2017-10693 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of Northeastern United States: Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2017; Recreational Management Measures, 24086-24092 2017-10703 Pacific Island Fisheries: 2017-18 Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish, 24092-24094 2017-10704 NOTICES Meetings: Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee; Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force, 24108-24109 2017-10732 Records of Decisions; Availability, 24107-24108 2017-10708 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24167-24168 2017-10750 Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 24167 2017-10681 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 24168-24169 2017-10731 Parole Parole Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24166-24167 2017-10723 2017-10724 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 24169 2017-10747 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24169-24171 2017-10666 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 24171-24173 2017-10686 Depository Trust Co.; Fixed Income Clearing Corp.; National Securities Clearing Corp., 24174-24180 2017-10689 2017-10690 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 24173-24174 2017-10691 NYSE Arca, Inc., 24180-24199 2017-10687 2017-10688 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: California; Amendment 1, 24199-24200 2017-10699 Idaho, 24199 2017-10700 Meetings: Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development, 24200 2017-10730 State Department State Department NOTICES Presidential Permits: Express Pipeline, LLC, 24200-24201 2017-10685 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24138-24139 2017-10734 Protecting Our Infants Act Report to Congress: Summary of Public Comment and Final Strategy, 24137-24138 2017-10735 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Norfolk Southern Railway Co.; Between Mansfield and Bloomington, McLean, Dewitt and Piatt Counties, IL, 24201 2017-10746 Control Exemptions: Grupo Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V. and GMexico Transportes, S.A. de C.V.; Florida East Coast Holdings Corp., 24201-24202 2017-10718 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Meetings: Regional Resource Stewardship Council, 24202 2017-10416 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Charter Establishments: Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee, 24207 2017-10721 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

82 100 Thursday, May 25, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 301 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0097] Asian Longhorned Beetle: Update List of Regulated Articles AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) regulations by removing plants of the genus Celtis, which we have determined not to be a host plant of ALB, from the list of regulated articles. As a result of the interim rule, there are no longer any restrictions on the movement of Celtis spp. plants from areas quarantined for ALB.

DATES:

Effective on May 25, 2017, we are adopting as a final rule the interim rule published at 81 FR 39175-39176 on June 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2352; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

In an interim rule 1 effective June 16, 2016, and published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2016 (81 FR 39175-39176, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0097), we amended the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) regulations in 7 CFR 301.51 by removing plants of the genus Celtis, which we have determined not to be a host plant of ALB, from the list of regulated articles. This action relieved restrictions on the movement of Celtis spp. plants from areas quarantined for ALB.

1 To view the interim rule and supporting documentation, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0097.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before August 15, 2016. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. Because this rule is waived, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that was published at 81 FR 39175-39176 on June 16, 2016. Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10675 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 944, 980, and 999 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0083; SC16-944/980/999-1 FIR] Changes to Reporting and Notification Requirements and Other Clarifying Changes for Imported Fruits, Vegetables, and Specialty Crops AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Affirmation of the interim rule as final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that updated reporting and notification requirements associated with, and made clarifying changes to, the fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop import regulations for certain commodities regulated under section 608(e) (hereinafter referred to as “8e”) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The interim rule shifted the exempt reporting requirement for imported tomatoes destined for noncommercial outlets for experimental purposes from the tomato import regulations to the safeguard procedures section of the vegetable import regulations. In addition, the pistachio import regulations were updated by removing reference to a paper-based notification of entry process. Other administrative changes were made to several of the 8e regulations to replace outdated information. These changes to the import regulations support the International Trade Data System (ITDS), a system that streamlines and automates the filing of import and export information by the trade.

DATES:

Effective May 30, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shannon Ramirez, Compliance and Enforcement Specialist, or Vincent Fusaro, Compliance and Enforcement Branch Chief, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” Section 8e provides that whenever certain commodities are regulated under Federal marketing orders, imports of those commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and/or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities. The Act also authorizes USDA to perform inspections and other related functions (such as commodity sampling) on those imported commodities and to certify whether these requirements have been met.

Parts 944, 980, and 999 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) specify inspection, certification, and reporting requirements for imported commodities regulated under 8e. These parts also list the imported commodities that may be exempt from grade, size, quality, and/or maturity requirements when imported for specific purposes (such as processing, donation to charitable organizations, or livestock feed). Additionally, these parts specify the form importers must use to report to USDA and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) imports of commodities exempt from 8e regulations.

USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13771, 13563, and 13175.

This rule continues in effect an interim rule clarifying change to part 980, the vegetable import regulations. The interim rule moved the procedure for filing an exempt commodity form for tomatoes destined for noncommercial outlets for experimental purposes from § 980.212 of the tomato import regulations to § 980.501 of the vegetable safeguard procedures import regulations. This change removed reference to a form that does not exist for imports and made the safeguard regulations consistent for all imported vegetables that are exempt from 8e regulations.

This rule also continues in effect the change to § 999.600 of the pistachio import regulations that removed the reference to a paper-based notification of entry process, known in the industry as the “stamp and fax” process. This paper-based process was replaced by an electronic filing requirement that was developed to comply with the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and was specified within the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Specialty Crops Inspection Division's regulations in an interim rule published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2016 (81 FR 93571). Removing this outdated information streamlines the regulations and provides consistency among the specialty crop import regulations.

This rule also continues in effect other minor administrative changes to §§ 944.401, 999.1, and 999.600 of the fruit and specialty crop import regulations. These changes, which include updating agency and program names and removing or updating other information that was duplicative or out of date, helps ensure the import regulations contain accurate information and align with the ITDS objective of streamlining import processes for the trade.

AMS has determined that these changes to the fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop import regulations meet CBP's requirements for ITDS by shifting an exempt-tomato reporting requirement to the proper safeguard procedures section of the vegetable import regulations. These regulations were revised in 2015 to provide an electronic filing option; streamline an entry notification process for imported pistachios; and remove or revise duplicative or outdated information. These changes help reduce the burden on America's import trade without compromising AMS' ability to ensure compliance with its import regulations.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2016, and effective on December 8, 2016 (81 FR 87409, Doc. No. AMS-SC-164-0083, SC16-944/980/999-1 IR), clarifying changes were made to part 980 by moving the exempt-use reporting requirements for tomatoes destined for noncommercial outlets for experimental purposes from § 980.212 (tomato import regulations) to § 980.501 (safeguard procedures section for imported vegetables).

In addition, § 999.600(d) of the pistachio import regulations was revised to remove the paper-based “stamp and fax” process, which has been replaced by an electronic process that importers now use to notify AMS of an initial request for inspection.

Finally, several administrative changes were made to various sections in parts 944 and 999 (the fruit and specialty crop import regulations, respectively). First, the USDA agency and program names were updated, where needed. Second, §§ 944.401(e) (olives) and 999.1(c)(1) (dates) were changed by simplifying the language regarding the requirement that importers provide USDA inspectors with identifying information about each lot being inspected. Finally, § 999.1(e) (dates) was updated by removing a paragraph titled “importation,” because it contained redundant and incomplete information about filing inspection or exemption documents with CBP.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017). Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.

Small agricultural service firms, which includes importers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on 2015 reporting, USDA estimates that there were two importers and two receivers of tomatoes that were exempt from 8e requirements. Although USDA does not have access to data about the business sizes of these importers and receivers, it is likely that the majority may be classified as large entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that moved the requirements for reporting imported tomatoes destined for noncommercial outlets for experimental purposes, which are exempt from 8e regulations, from the tomato import regulations to the safeguard section of the vegetable import regulations. This change to the regulations did not revise the procedures currently used by importers and receivers of exempt tomatoes; instead, it shifted the outdated requirements contained in § 980.212 to the more appropriate safeguard procedures section in § 980.501. Most importers and receivers already file FV-6 forms electronically with AMS, while some paper forms are still submitted to AMS. In 2015, AMS estimates it received five electronic FV-6 forms and no paper FV-6 forms for approximately 14,900 pounds of exempt tomatoes.

As part of the full implementation of ITDS, importers and receivers report exempt shipments through CBP's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system and AMS' Compliance and Enforcement Management System (CEMS). CEMS was developed by AMS to replace AMS' Marketing Order Online System (MOLS), an online system that was used from its implementation in 2008 until it was replaced by CEMS in 2016. An affirmation of interim rule as final rule was published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2015, (80 FR 36465) that provided for the electronic submission of FV-6 forms, a practice that has existed since MOLS was implemented in 2008 but was not reflected in the regulations. This action imposes no additional burden on importers and receivers of exempt tomatoes.

Regarding alternatives to this action, AMS determined that these changes to the regulations were needed to comply with ITDS requirements. Moving an outdated, paper-based exempt form-filing requirement from the import tomato regulations to the safeguard section of the vegetable import regulations standardized the regulations and properly provided for the current requirement of filing a paper or electronic form FV-6, which benefits importers and receivers who import these exempt tomatoes. In addition, changing the pistachio regulations by removing the paper-based “stamp and fax” requirement streamlined the regulations and reduced the burden on the trade. The other administrative changes made in the interim rule provided the import trade with accurate information.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements for the form FV-6 (for commodities exempt from 8e requirements) have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0167 (Specific Commodities Imported into United States Exempt From Import Regulations). No changes in the requirements for the FV-6 form as a result of this action are necessary. The shift of the requirements for exempt-use filings from the tomato import regulations to the safeguard section for imported vegetables was administrative in nature and did not change the practice that has existed for many years. Should any changes to form FV-6 become necessary in the future, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large importers or receivers of commodities exempt from 8e regulations. As with all import regulations, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Further, importers are already familiar with the long-existing process and requirement to file FV-6 forms for commodities exempt from 8e regulations. Also, the import trade is fully aware of the ITDS initiative, which is designed to streamline and automate the filing of import shipment data.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before February 3, 2017. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS-SC-16-0083-0001.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (81 FR 87409, December 5, 2016) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 944

Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Olives, Oranges.

7 CFR Part 980

Food grades and standards, Imports, Marketing agreements, Onions, Potatoes, Tomatoes.

7 CFR Part 999

Dates, Filberts, Food grades and standards, Imports, Nuts, Pistachios, Prunes, Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Walnuts.

PARTS 944, 980, AND 999—[AMENDED] Accordingly, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR parts 944, 980, and 999 that was published at 81 FR 87409 on December 5, 2016, is adopted as a final rule, without change. Dated: May 19, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10678 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 985 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0107; SC17-985-1 FR] Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for the 2017-2018 Marketing Year AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule implements a recommendation from the Far West Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee) to establish the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2017-2018 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2017. The Far West production area includes the states of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah. The Committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of spearmint oil producers operating within the area of production. This action establishes salable quantities and allotment percentages for Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil of 774,645 pounds and 36 percent, respectively, and for Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil of 1,075,051 pounds and 44 percent, respectively. The Committee recommended these salable quantities and allotment percentages to help maintain stability in the spearmint oil market.

DATES:

Effective May 26, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dale Novotny, Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13771, 13563, and 13175. This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Under the order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This final rule will establish the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, which handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2017-2018 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2017.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

The Far West Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee) meets annually in the fall to adopt a marketing policy for the ensuing marketing year or years. In determining such marketing policy, the Committee considers a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the current and projected supply, estimated future demand, production costs, and producer prices for all classes of spearmint oil. Input from spearmint oil handlers and producers regarding prospective marketing conditions for the upcoming year is considered as well.

If the Committee's marketing policy considerations indicate a need for regulating the quantity of any or all classes of spearmint oil marketed, the Committee subsequently recommends to USDA the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for such class or classes of oil in the forthcoming marketing year. Recommendations for volume regulation are intended to ensure that market requirements for Far West spearmint oil are satisfied and orderly marketing conditions are maintained.

The salable quantity represents the total amount of each class of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the marketing year. The allotment percentage is the percentage used to calculate each producer's prorated share of the salable quantity. It is derived by dividing the salable quantity for each class of spearmint oil by the total of all producers' allotment bases for the same class of oil. Each producer's annual allotment of salable spearmint oil is calculated by multiplying their respective total allotment base by the allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil. A producer's allotment base is their quantified share of the spearmint oil market based on a statistical representation of past spearmint oil production, with accommodation for reasonable, normal adjustments to such base as prescribed by the Committee and approved by USDA.

Salable quantities and allotment percentages are established at levels intended to fulfill market requirements and to maintain orderly marketing conditions. Committee recommendations for volume regulation are made well in advance of the period in which the regulations are to be effective, thereby allowing producers the chance to adjust their production decisions accordingly.

Pursuant to authority in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order, the full eight-member Committee met on October 19, 2016, and recommended salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year. By a vote of 6-2, the Committee recommended the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil of 774,645 pounds and 36 percent, respectively. The two Committee members that voted in opposition to the recommendation both supported volume regulation, but at higher levels than were proposed. They felt that a nearly 20 percent year-over-year reduction in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil was too severe.

For Native spearmint oil, with a unanimous vote (7-0, with the public member abstaining), the Committee recommended the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage of 1,075,051 pounds and 44 percent, respectively. Pursuant to § 985.29(a), seven members of the Committee constitute a quorum and six concurring votes are required to pass a motion.

This final rule establishes the amount of Scotch and Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2017-2018 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2017. Salable quantities and allotment percentages have been placed into effect each season since the order's inception in 1980.

Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil

As noted above, the Committee recommended a salable quantity of Scotch spearmint oil of 774,645 pounds and an allotment percentage of 36 percent for the upcoming 2017-2018 marketing year. To arrive at these recommendations, the Committee utilized 2017-2018 sales estimates for Scotch spearmint oil, as provided by several of the industry handlers, historical and current Scotch spearmint oil production, inventory statistics, and international market data obtained from consultants for the spearmint oil industry.

The trade demand estimate for Far West Scotch spearmint oil was revised during the 2016-2017 marketing year from an initial estimate of 900,000 pounds to the current estimate of 950,000 pounds. Trade demand is expected to decrease from the 950,000 pounds anticipated in the 2016-2017 marketing year to 925,000 pounds in the 2017-2018 marketing year. Industry reports indicate that the decreased trade demand estimate is the result of decreased consumer demand for spearmint-flavored products, especially chewing gum in China and India, as fruit flavors are becoming preferential to consumers. In addition, better than expected production of spearmint oil in competing markets, most notably Canada and the U.S. Midwest, have also factored into the Committee's assessment of the market.

Production of Far West Scotch spearmint oil declined from 1,229,258 pounds in 2015 to an estimated 1,113,346 pounds in 2016. Production over the last three seasons has exceeded sales, leading to a gradual build in the salable carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil. Scotch spearmint oil held in the reserve pool, which was completely depleted at the beginning of the 2014-2015 marketing year, has also been gradually increasing over the past three years.

Carry-in represents the amount of salable spearmint oil produced, but not marketed, in a previous year or years that is available for sale in the current year under a previous year's annual allotment. Under volume regulation, spearmint oil that is designated as salable continues to be available to the market until it is sold and may be marketed at any time at the discretion of the owner. Spearmint oil held in reserve, however, is spearmint oil that has been produced in excess of a producer's marketing year allotment that can only be released into the market under certain circumstances.

Salable carry-in is the primary measure of excess spearmint oil supply under the order as it represents overproduction in prior years that is currently available to the market without restriction. Spearmint oil held in the reserve pool is a lesser indicator of excess supply, as it is spearmint oil that is not available to the market in the current marketing year without an increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage.

The Committee estimates that there will be 174,507 pounds of salable carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil on June 1, 2017. If correct, this figure would be up 8,739 pounds from the 165,768 pounds carried in the previous year on June 1, 2016. The Committee estimates that salable carry-in will decrease to 24,152 pounds at the beginning of the 2018-2019 marketing year, if current market conditions and projections are maintained.

This anticipated level of carry-in (24,152 pounds) would be below the quantity that the Committee considers favorable (generally 150,000 pounds). However, the Committee believes that this lower salable carry-in is manageable given the strong production of spearmint in the current marketing year and the quantity of Scotch spearmint oil held in the reserve pool that could be released into the market if the industry experiences an unexpected increase in demand.

The Committee reported that there was 15,937 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil held in the reserve pool as of May 31, 2016. The Committee expects the reserve pool to increase to 204,691 pounds by May 31, 2017. This quantity of reserve oil should be an adequate buffer to supply the market if necessary.

The Committee estimates the total available supply of Scotch oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year to be 949,152 pounds (174,507 pounds of estimated carry-in plus 774,645 pounds of recommended salable quantity). The 2017-2018 Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity of 774,645 pounds recommended by the Committee represents a decrease of 184,066 pounds from the salable quantity established the previous marketing year (958,711 pounds).

The Committee estimates the 2017-2018 marketing year trade demand for Scotch spearmint oil at 925,000 pounds. As stated previously, the Committee expects that there will be 174,507 pounds of available carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil on June 1, 2017. That carry-in, when combined with the recommended 2017-2018 marketing year salable quantity of 774,645 pounds, will result in a total supply of 949,152 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year. This quantity of Scotch spearmint oil is expected to fully satisfy estimated market demand of 925,000 pounds and is estimated to leave 24,152 pounds as carry-out from the 2017-2018 marketing year to be used as carry-in for the 2018-2019 marketing year.

The Committee's stated intent in the use of marketing order volume regulation provisions for Scotch spearmint oil is to keep adequate supplies available to meet market needs and maintain orderly marketing conditions. The recommended salable quantity of Scotch spearmint oil for the upcoming marketing year is less than the salable quantity established for the previous year. Even so, the Committee expects that the market will be fully supplied for the 2017-2018 marketing year.

The Committee believes that the recommended salable quantity will adequately meet demand, as well as result in a reasonable carry-in for the following year. The Committee developed its recommendation for the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2017-2018 marketing year based on the information discussed above, as well as the computational data outlined below.

(A) Estimated carry-in of Scotch spearmint oil on June 1, 2017: 174,507 pounds. This figure is the difference between the revised 2016-2017 marketing year total available supply of 1,124,507 pounds and the revised 2016-2017 marketing year estimated trade demand of 950,000 pounds.

(B) Estimated trade demand of Scotch spearmint oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 925,000 pounds. This figure was established at the Committee meeting held on October 19, 2016. The average estimated trade demand derived from six production area producer meetings held prior to the main meeting on October 19, 2016, was 960,400, which is 8,000 pounds more than the average of trade demand estimates submitted by handlers (952,400 pounds). Far West Scotch spearmint oil sales have averaged 1,021,786 pounds per year over the last three years, and 987,639 pounds over the last five years. Given the anticipated market conditions for the coming year, the Committee decided it was prudent to anticipate the lower trade demand at 925,000 pounds. Should the initially established volume regulation levels prove insufficient to adequately supply the market, the Committee has the authority to recommend intra-seasonal increases, as were undertaken in the 2014-2015 marketing year, and several other previous marketing years.

(C) Salable quantity of Scotch spearmint oil required from the 2017-2018 marketing year production: 750,493 pounds. This figure is the difference between the estimated 2017-2018 marketing year trade demand (925,000 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2017 (174,507 pounds). This salable quantity represents the minimum amount of Scotch spearmint oil that may be needed to satisfy estimated demand for the coming year.

(D) Total estimated allotment base of Scotch spearmint oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 2,151,792 pounds. This figure represents a one-percent increase over the 2016-2017 total allotment base of 2,130,487 pounds as prescribed by the order under § 985.53(d)(1). The one-percent increase equals 21,305 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil. This total estimated allotment base is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost because of the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The adjustment is usually minimal.

(E) Computed Scotch spearmint oil allotment percentage for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 34.9 percent. This percentage is computed by dividing the minimum required salable quantity (750,493 pounds) by the total estimated allotment base (2,151,792 pounds).

(F) Recommended Scotch spearmint oil allotment percentage for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 36 percent. This is the Committee's recommendation and is based on the computed allotment percentage (34.9 percent), and input from producers and handlers at the October 19, 2016, meeting. The recommended 36 percent allotment percentage reflects the Committee's belief that the computed percentage (34.9 percent) may not adequately supply the potential 2017-2018 Scotch spearmint oil market demand.

(G) Recommended Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 774,645 pounds. This figure is the product of the recommended salable allotment percentage (36 percent) and the total estimated allotment base (2,151,792 pounds) for the 2017-2018 marketing year.

(H) Estimated total available supply of Scotch spearmint oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 949,152 pounds. This figure is the sum of the 2017-2018 recommended salable quantity (774,645 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2017 (174,507 pounds).

Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil

The Committee also recommended a 2017-2018 Native spearmint oil salable quantity of 1,075,051 pounds and an allotment percentage of 44 percent at the October 19, 2016, meeting. These figures represent a decrease of 134,495 pounds and 6 percent, respectively, from the salable quantity and allotment percentage established for the previous marketing year. To formulate this recommendation, the Committee utilized Native spearmint oil sales estimates for the 2017-2018 marketing year, as provided by several of the industry's handlers, as well as historical and current Native spearmint oil market statistics.

The Committee estimates that there will be 1,094,659 pounds of Native spearmint oil in the reserve pool on June 1, 2017. This figure, which is the excess Native spearmint oil production held in reserve by producers, is 499,305 pounds higher than the reserve pool held by producers on June 1, 2016. This would be the highest reserve pool level since 2004. Reserve pool levels of Native spearmint oil had been slowly moving toward the level that the Committee believes is optimal for the industry prior to the increases experienced in 2015 and 2016. The large year over year increase in Native spearmint oil held in reserve (84 percent) is the result of substantially increased production and only moderately increased industry trade demand.

Far West Native spearmint oil production was estimated at 1,510,936 pounds in 2015, compared to 1,694,684 pounds estimated for 2016. Although total estimated acres of Native spearmint production decreased by 164 acres, yield per acre has risen from 145.8 in 2015 to 166.2 pounds per acre this year. Conversely, sales of Native spearmint oil, which were increasing at about a 4 percent rate from 2009 to 2014, dropped by 12 percent for the 2015-2016 marketing year.

Despite Committee statistics that indicate a sharp drop for Far West Native spearmint oil sales from the previous marketing year (2015-2016), monthly sales, to date, for the 2016-2017 marketing year have been moderately stronger. The Committee expects this trend to continue, even as imports of spearmint oil are also rising. Canada more than doubled its shipments of spearmint oil into the U.S. market from 2014 to 2015, and Chinese shipments are up 14 percent over the same period. While it is a common practice for buyers to mix U.S. and foreign-produced oils to create a final product with a certain flavor profile, the greatest percentage of oil in those blends continues to be from the Far West. The Committee and the industry expect that practice to continue into the future.

One exception to the rising trend in spearmint oil imports, India has reduced shipments over the last two years. Recent reports used by the Committee indicate that spearmint oil produced in India is improving in quality, yet decreasing in acreage. Indian spearmint oil is increasingly regarded as an alternative to high quality, Far West Native spearmint oil, but production problems have limited its importation into the U.S. market. As a result, imports from India, while still in demand, decreased in the past year. However, spearmint oil from India may return as a major threat to the Far West Native spearmint oil industry's domestic market share in the future.

One of the factors considered by the Committee when it estimated trade demand was that sales of mint products, both domestically and abroad, have slowed down. This is largely the result of slowing economies in Europe and Asia. In addition, demand is expected to be impacted by the purchasing patterns of end users. Over the last several years, end users may have been building reserve stocks of Far West oil when prices were low as a hedge against future price increases. End users of spearmint oil are expected to continue to rely on Far West production as their main source of high quality Native spearmint oil, but demand may be at lower quantities moving forward in response to the current market factors. However, Committee members remain optimistic that demand will rise again in the long term.

As such, spearmint oil handlers, who regularly help predict trade demand for Far West Native spearmint oil, estimate demand to range between 1,300,000 and 1,400,000 pounds (with an average of 1,320,000 pounds) for the 2017-2018 marketing year. This estimate is the same as the estimate for the previous marketing year. The Committee used the handlers' input when it estimated the 2017-2018 marketing year Native spearmint oil trade demand to be 1,250,000 pounds. This figure is 25,000 pounds less than the figure used in the previous marketing year and approximately 75,000 pounds below the 3-year average sales figure (1,324,560 pounds).

The estimated carry-in of 189,820 pounds of Native spearmint oil on June 1, 2017, in conjunction with the Committee recommended salable quantity of 1,075,051 pounds, results in an estimated total available supply of 1,264,871 pounds of Native spearmint oil during the 2017-2018 marketing year. With estimated trade demand of 1,250,000 pounds for the 2017-2018 marketing year, the Committee projects that 14,871 pounds of Native spearmint oil will be carried into the 2018-2019 marketing year, a reduction of 174,909 pounds from the estimated 2017-2018 marketing year carry-in. The Committee estimates that there will be 1,094,659 pounds of Native spearmint oil held in the reserve pool at the beginning of the 2017-2018 marketing year. Should the industry experience an unexpected increase in trade demand during the 2017-2018 marketing year, Native spearmint oil in the reserve pool could be released to satisfy that demand.

The Committee's stated intent in the use of marketing order volume regulation provisions for Native spearmint oil is to keep adequate supplies available to meet market needs while maintaining orderly marketing conditions. With that in mind, the Committee developed its recommendation for the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2017-2018 marketing year based on the information discussed above, as well as the data outlined below.

(A) Estimated carry-in of Native spearmint oil on June 1, 2017: 189,820 pounds. This figure is the difference between the revised 2016-2017 marketing year total available supply of 1,430,820 pounds and the revised 2016-2017 marketing year estimated trade demand of 1,241,000 pounds.

(B) Estimated trade demand of Native spearmint oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 1,250,000 pounds. This estimate was established by the Committee and is based on input from producers at six Native spearmint oil production area meetings held in mid-October 2016, as well as estimates provided by handlers and other meeting participants at the October 19, 2016, main meeting. This figure represents a decrease of 25,000 pounds from the previous year's estimate. The average estimated trade demand for Native spearmint oil from the six production area grower's meetings was 1,287,500 pounds, whereas the handlers' estimates ranged from 1,300,000 to 1,400,000 pounds. The average of Far West Native spearmint oil sales over the last three years is 1,324,560 pounds. However, the quantity marketed over the most recent full marketing year, 2015-2016, was 1,241,140 pounds. The Committee chose to be conservative in the establishment of its trade demand estimate for the 2017-2018 marketing year to avoid oversupplying the market in the face of increasing production.

(C) Salable quantity of Native spearmint oil required from the 2017-2018 marketing year production: 1,060,180 pounds. This figure is the difference between the estimated 2017-2018 marketing year estimated trade demand (1,250,000 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2017 (189,820 pounds). This is the minimum amount of Native spearmint oil that the Committee believes will be required to meet the anticipated 2017-2018 marketing year trade demand.

(D) Total estimated allotment base of Native spearmint oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 2,443,297 pounds. This figure represents a one-percent increase over the 2016-2017 total allotment base of 2,419,106 pounds as prescribed by the order in § 985.53(d)(1). The one-percent increase equals 24,191 pounds of Native spearmint oil. This estimate is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost because of the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The revision is usually minimal.

(E) Computed Native spearmint oil allotment percentage for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 43.4 percent. This percentage is calculated by dividing the required salable quantity (1,060,180 pounds) by the total estimated allotment base (2,443,297 pounds) for the 2017-2018 marketing year.

(F) Recommended Native spearmint oil allotment percentage for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 44 percent. This is the Committee's recommendation based on the computed allotment percentage (43.4 percent), the average of the computed allotment percentage figures from the six production area meetings (46.7 percent), and input from producers and handlers at the October 19, 2016, meeting. The recommended 44 percent allotment percentage is also based on the Committee's belief that the computed percentage (43.4 percent) may not adequately supply the potential market for Native spearmint oil in the 2017-2018 marketing year.

(G) Recommended Native spearmint oil 2017-2018 marketing year salable quantity: 1,075,051 pounds. This figure is the product of the recommended allotment percentage (44 percent) and the total estimated allotment base (2,443,297 pounds).

(H) Estimated available supply of Native spearmint oil for the 2017-2018 marketing year: 1,264,871 pounds. This figure is the sum of the 2017-2018 recommended salable quantity (1,075,051 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2017 (189,820 pounds).

Under volume regulation, the salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during a marketing year. Each producer is allotted a share of the salable quantity by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's allotment base for the applicable class of spearmint oil.

The Committee's recommended Scotch and Native spearmint oil salable quantities and allotment percentages of 774,645 pounds and 36 percent, and 1,075,051 pounds and 44 percent, respectively, are based on the goal of maintaining market stability. The Committee anticipates that this goal will be achieved by matching the available supply of each class of spearmint oil to the estimated demand of each, thus avoiding extreme fluctuations in inventories and prices.

The salable quantities established by this final rule are not expected to cause a shortage of spearmint oil supplies. Any unanticipated or additional market demand for spearmint oil which may develop during the marketing year could be satisfied by an intra-seasonal increase in the salable quantity. The order contains a provision in § 985.51 for intra-seasonal increases to allow the Committee the flexibility to respond quickly to changing market conditions.

Under volume regulation, producers who produce more than their annual allotments during the marketing year may transfer such excess spearmint oil to producers who have produced less than their annual allotment. In addition, on December 1 of each year, producers that have not transferred their excess spearmint oil to other producers must place their excess spearmint oil production into the reserve pool to be released in the future in accordance with market needs and under the Committee's direction.

This regulation is similar to regulations issued in prior seasons. The average initial allotment percentage for the five most recent marketing years for both Scotch and Native spearmint oil is 52.6 percent.

In conjunction with the issuance of this final rule, USDA has reviewed the Committee's marketing policy statement for the 2017-2018 marketing year. The Committee's marketing policy statement, a requirement whenever the Committee recommends volume regulation, fully meets the intent of § 985.51(b) of the order.

During its discussion of potential 2017-2018 salable quantities and allotment percentages, the Committee considered: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) the prospective production of each class of oil; (4) the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Conformity with USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” (http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders) has also been reviewed and confirmed.

The establishment of these salable quantities and allotment percentages allows for anticipated market needs. In determining anticipated market needs, the Committee considered historical sales, as well as changes and trends in production and demand. This rule also provides producers with information on the amount of spearmint oil that should be produced for the 2017 production season in order to meet anticipated market demand.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are eight spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, approximately 41 producers of Scotch spearmint oil, and approximately 94 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 12 of the 41 Scotch spearmint oil producers, and 31 of the 94 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, a majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

This final rule establishes the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, which handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2017-2018 marketing year. The Committee recommended this rule to help maintain stability in the spearmint oil market by matching supply to estimated demand, thereby avoiding extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices. Establishing quantities that may be purchased or handled during the marketing year through volume regulations allows producers to coordinate their spearmint oil production with the expected market demand. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order.

The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of spearmint oil. A typical spearmint oil producing operation has enough acreage for rotation such that the total acreage required to produce the crop is about one-third spearmint and two-thirds rotational crops. Thus, the typical spearmint oil producer has to have considerably more acreage than is planted to spearmint during any given season. Crop rotation is an essential cultural practice in the production of spearmint oil for purposes of weed, insect, and disease control. To remain economically viable with the added costs associated with spearmint oil production, a majority of spearmint oil producing farms fall into the SBA category of large businesses.

Small spearmint oil producers generally are not as extensively diversified as larger ones and, as such, are more at risk from market fluctuations. Such small producers generally need to market their entire annual production of spearmint oil and are not financially able to hold spearmint oil for sale in future years. In addition, small producers generally do not have a large assortment of other crops to cushion seasons with poor spearmint oil returns.

Conversely, large diversified producers have the potential to endure one or more seasons of poor spearmint oil markets because income from alternate crops could support their operation for a period of time. Reasonable assurance of a stable price and market provides all producing entities with the ability to maintain proper cash flow and to meet annual expenses.

Costs to producers and handlers, large and small, resulting from this rule are expected to be offset by the benefits derived from a more stable market and increased returns. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all producers and handlers regardless of their size.

Instability in the spearmint oil sub-sector of the mint industry is much more likely to originate on the supply side than the demand side. Fluctuations in yield and acreage planted from season to season tend to be larger than fluctuations in the amount purchased by handlers. Historically, demand for spearmint oil tends to change slowly from year to year.

Demand for spearmint oil at the farm level is derived from retail demand for spearmint-flavored products such as chewing gum, toothpaste, and mouthwash. The manufacturers of these products are by far the largest users of spearmint oil. However, spearmint flavoring is generally a very minor component of the products in which it is used, so changes in the raw product price have little impact on the retail prices for those goods.

In 2013, 2014, and 2015, the Committee set salable percentages at levels that resulted in most, if not all, of the spearmint oil production being made available to the market. This was in response to the increased demand for spearmint oil from the Far West due to increased utilization by end users and the reduced supply of spearmint oil coming from other production areas, both domestic and foreign.

Although there is still strong demand for spearmint oil, competing areas (mainly Canada) have experienced better than expected production in 2015 and 2016, and will create some marketing pressure for spearmint oil from the Far West. In addition, the slowing of international markets for spearmint-flavored products has negatively impacted the demand for domestically produced spearmint oil. Thus, the lower salable quantities and allotment percentages recommended by the Committee for the 2017-2018 marketing year are intended to be responsive to the changing environment of the spearmint oil market.

In the late 1990s, the Committee recommended higher than normal salable quantities and allotment percentages in hopes of gaining market share. This approach did not work. In the following years, the salable quantities and allotment percentages were established at lower levels in order to reduce the excess spearmint oil production and resulting build-up of inventory. In order to avoid a similar scenario moving forward, the Committee, relying heavily on the information provided to them by spearmint oil handlers during the October 19, 2016, meeting, ultimately recommended reducing the 2017-2018 marketing year salable quantities and allotment percentages from the previous year to better align the available supply with market demand.

The Committee reported that recent producer prices for spearmint oil are $16.50 to $18.00 per pound. Average producer prices for all types of spearmint oil for the production years 2013-2015 at $18.79, $19.21, and $18.32 per pound, respectively. These are computed price averages for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho combined, based on USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data.

Spearmint oil production tends to be cyclical. Prior to the inception of the marketing order in 1980, extreme variability in producer prices was common. For example, the season average producer price for Washington Native spearmint oil in 1971 was $3.00 per pound. By 1975, the producer price had risen to $11.00 per pound, an increase of over 260 percent in just four years. Such fluctuations were not unusual in the spearmint oil industry in the years leading up to the promulgation of the order. For most producers, this was an untenable situation. Years of relatively high spearmint oil production, with demand remaining relatively stable, led to periods in which large producer stocks of unsold spearmint oil depressed producer prices. Shortages and high prices followed in subsequent years, as producers responded to price signals by cutting back production.

After establishment of the order, the supply and price variability in the spearmint oil market moderated. During the 25-year period from 1982 to 2006, the season average producer price for Native spearmint oil ranged from a high of $11.10 to a low of $9.00 per pound, or a difference of 23 percent. No change in producer price from one year to the next during this period was more than $1.00 per pound. This is a remarkable record of price stability. From 2006 to 2008, when production contracts tied to input costs were prevalent in the industry, the annual average Native spearmint oil producer price jumped by $3.80 per pound. During this time period, prices for fuel, fertilizer, and labor increased dramatically, resulting in higher contracted producer prices, and a resulting concurrent increase in the overall season average producer price for the industry.

The significant variability of the spearmint oil market is illustrated by the fact that the coefficient of variation, or CV (a standard measure of variability), of Far West spearmint oil producer prices for the period 1980-2015 (when the marketing order was in effect) is 0.24, compared to 0.36 for the decade prior to the promulgation of the order (1970-79) and 0.49 for the prior 20-year period (1960-79). The coefficient of variation, as presented herein, was calculated by USDA from information provided by the Committee and NASS. This analysis provides an indication of the price stabilizing impact of the marketing order as higher CV values correspond to greater variability.

According to information compiled by the Committee, the lowest level of production in a marketing year since the establishment of the order was about 47 percent of the 36-year average (1.96 million pounds from 1980 through 2015) and the largest crop was approximately 157 percent of the 36-year average. A key consequence is that, in years of oversupply and low prices, the season average producer price of spearmint oil is below the average cost of production (as measured by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service).

The wide fluctuations in supply and prices that result from the cyclical nature of the spearmint oil industry, which were even more pronounced before the creation of the order, can create liquidity problems for some producers. The order was designed to reduce the price impacts of the cyclical swings in production. However, producers have been less able to weather these cycles in recent years because of increases to production costs. While prices for spearmint oil have been relatively steady, the cost of production has increased to the extent that plans to plant spearmint may be postponed or vacated indefinitely. Producers may also be enticed by the prices of alternative crops and their lower cost of production.

In an effort to stabilize prices, the spearmint oil industry uses the volume regulation mechanisms authorized under the order. This authority allows the Committee to recommend a salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of oil for the upcoming marketing year. The salable quantity for each class of oil is the total volume of spearmint oil produced in a marketing year that producers may sell during that same marketing year. The allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil is derived by dividing the salable quantity by the total allotment base.

Each producer is then issued an annual allotment certificate, in pounds, for the applicable class of oil. This is calculated by multiplying the producer's allotment base by the applicable allotment percentage. This is the amount of oil of each applicable class that the producer can market under the order.

By December 1 of each year, the Committee identifies any oil that individual producers have produced above the volume specified on annual allotment certificates. Prior to December 1, such excess oil can be transferred to another producer to fill a deficiency in that producer's annual allotment as provided for in § 985.156(a).

The order allows limited quantities of excess oil to be sold by one producer to another producer to fill production deficiencies during a marketing year. A deficiency occurs when on-farm production is less than a producer's annual allotment. When a producer has a deficiency, the producer may utilize their own reserve pool oil to fill that deficiency, or excess production (production of spearmint oil in excess of the producer's annual allotment) from another producer may also be secured to fill the deficiency. As mentioned previously, all of these provisions need to be exercised prior to December 1 of each year.

Excess spearmint oil not transferred to another producer to fill a deficiency is held in storage and, on December 1, is added to the reserve pool administered by the Committee pursuant to § 985.157. The Committee maintains the reserve pool for each class of spearmint oil. Once spearmint oil is placed in the reserve pool, such spearmint oil cannot enter the market during that marketing year unless USDA approves a Committee recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage for a certain class of oil, subsequently making a portion of the reserve pool of that class of spearmint oil available to the market. Without an increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage, spearmint oil placed in the reserve pool cannot be removed from the reserve pool and marketed in the marketing year in which it is initially placed in the reserve pool. However, producers may dispose of reserve spearmint oil from their own production, and held in their own account, under certain provisions in subsequent marketing years under the supervision of the Committee.

While the Committee administers the reserve pool of spearmint oil, ownership and physical possession of spearmint oil held in reserve does not transfer to the Committee. The Committee accounts for, and controls the release of, reserve spearmint oil, but does not take title to, nor dispose of, any such oil of its own accord or for its own benefit. Producers, at their sole discretion, make the decisions regarding the disposition of oil held in the reserve pool under any one of three possible mechanisms.

Section 985.57(b) details the conditions under which a producer may dispose of their reserve pool spearmint oil. First, producers may utilize reserve oil from their own production to fill intra-seasonal increases in the allotment percentage and salable quantity. Second, producers may fill an ensuing year's annual allotment from spearmint oil held in the reserve pool. Lastly, producers may exchange salable oil of the same class and quantity of reserve oil from their own production to rotate stock, so long as the Committee is properly notified and the oil is properly identified.

In any given year, the total available supply of spearmint oil is composed of current production plus salable carryover stocks from the previous crop. The Committee seeks to maintain market stability by balancing supply and demand, and to close the marketing year with an appropriate level of salable spearmint oil to carry over into the subsequent marketing year. If the industry has production in excess of the salable quantity, the reserve pool absorbs the surplus quantity of spearmint oil, thereby withholding it from the market, unless such oil is needed to fill unanticipated intra-seasonal increases in demand. In this way, excess spearmint oil is not allowed to oversupply the market and create price instability. Likewise, if production is insufficient in any given year to fully supply the market with spearmint oil, the reserve pool oil can be released to satisfy the market demand until production can be increased.

Therefore, under its provisions, the order may attempt to stabilize prices by (1) regulating supply and establishing reserves in high production years, thus minimizing the price-depressing effect that excess producer stocks have on unsold spearmint oil, and (2) ensuring that stocks are available in short supply years when prices would otherwise increase dramatically. Reserve pool stocks, which increase in high production years, are drawn down in years where the crop is short.

An econometric model generated by USDA was used to assess the impact that volume regulation has on the prices producers receive for their commodity. Without volume regulation, spearmint oil markets would likely be over-supplied. This could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to the next crop year. The model estimates how much lower producer prices would likely be in the absence of volume regulation.

The Committee estimated trade demand for the 2017-2018 marketing year for both classes of oil at 2,175,000 pounds, and that the expected combined salable carry-in will be 364,327 pounds. This results in a combined required salable quantity of 1,810,673 pounds (2,175,000 pounds of total trade demand less 364,327 pounds of total carry-in) for the 2017-2018 marketing year. Under volume regulation, total sales of spearmint oil by producers for the 2017-2018 marketing year will be held to 2,214,023 pounds (the recommended salable quantity for both classes of spearmint oil of 1,849,696 pounds plus 364,327 pounds of carry-in). This total available supply of 2,214,023 pounds should be more than adequate to supply the 2,175,000 pounds of anticipated total trade demand for spearmint oil. In addition, as of June 1, 2016, the total reserve pool for both classes of spearmint oil stood at 611,291 pounds. Furthermore, that quantity is expected to rise over the course of the 2016-2017 marketing year. Should trade demand increase unexpectedly during the 2017-2018 marketing year, reserve pool spearmint oil could be released into the market to supply that increase in demand.

The recommended allotment percentages, upon which 2017-2018 producer allotments are based, are 36 percent for Scotch spearmint oil and 44 percent for Native spearmint oil. Without volume regulation, producers would not be held to these allotment levels, and could produce and sell an unrestricted quantity of spearmint oil. The USDA econometric model estimated that the season average producer price per pound (from both classes of spearmint oil) would decline about $2.45 per pound as a result of the higher quantities of spearmint oil that would be produced and marketed without volume regulation. The surplus situation for the spearmint oil market that would exist without volume regulation in 2017-2018 also would likely dampen prospects for improved producer prices in future years because of the buildup in stocks.

The use of volume regulation allows the industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. The use of volume regulation is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices of products containing spearmint oil and would not result in fewer retail sales of such products.

The Committee discussed alternatives to the recommendations contained in this rule for both classes of spearmint oil. The Committee discussed and rejected the idea of not regulating any volume for both classes of spearmint oil because of the severe price-depressing effects that would likely occur without volume regulation. The alternative to establish salable quantities and allotment percentages at the 2016-2017 marketing year's levels was discussed, but not put to any motion, for both classes of oil. The Committee also discussed and considered salable quantities and allotment percentages that were above and below the levels that were ultimately recommended for Scotch spearmint oil. Ultimately, the action taken by the Committee was to decrease the salable quantities and allotment percentages for both Class 1 and Class 3 spearmint oil from the current 2016-2017 marketing year levels.

As noted earlier, the Committee's recommendation to establish salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of spearmint oil was made after careful consideration of all available information including: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) the prospective production of each class of oil; (4) the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity.

Based on its review, the Committee believes that the salable quantities and allotment percentages recommended will achieve the objectives sought. The Committee also believes that, should there be no volume regulation in effect for the upcoming marketing year, the Far West spearmint oil industry would return to the pronounced cyclical price patterns that occurred prior to the promulgation of the order. As previously stated, annual salable quantities and allotment percentages have been issued for both classes of spearmint oil since the order's inception. The salable quantities and allotment percentages established herein are expected to facilitate the goal of maintaining orderly marketing conditions for Far West spearmint oil for the 2017-2018 and future marketing years.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes are necessary in those requirements as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule establishes the salable quantities and allotment percentages for Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil and Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil produced in the Far West during the 2017-2018 marketing year. Accordingly, this action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil producers or handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the October 19, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on the issues presented.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2017 (82 FR 16001). A copy of the rule was provided to Committee staff, who in turn made it available to all Far West spearmint oil producers, handlers, and interested persons. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending May 1, 2017, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because the 2017-2018 marketing year starts on June 1, 2017, and handlers will need to begin purchasing the spearmint oil allotted under this rulemaking. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Finally, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule, and no comments were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is amended as follows:

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER REGULATING THE HANDLING OF SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE FAR WEST 1. The authority citation for part 985 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 985.236 is added to read as follows:
§ 985.236 Salable quantities and allotment percentages—2017-2018 marketing year.

The salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil during the marketing year beginning on June 1, 2017, shall be as follows:

(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable quantity of 774,645 pounds and an allotment percentage of 36 percent.

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable quantity of 1,075,051 pounds and an allotment percentage of 44 percent.

Dated: May 19, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10679 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. FAA-2009-0671; Amdt. No. 5-1A] RIN 2120-AJ86 Safety Management System for Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holders; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

This technical amendment corrects an error in the final rule titled Safety Management System for Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holders, published on January 8, 2015. In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations to require air carriers conducting domestic, flag and supplemental operations to put a safety management system (SMS) in place by 2018.

DATES:

This rule is effective May 25, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Van Buren, Chief System Engineer for Aviation Safety, Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention (AVP), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 494-8417; facsimile: (202) 267-3992; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Without Prior Notice

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.

This technical amendment corrects an erroneous cross-reference in § 5.71(a)(6). This correction will not impose any additional restrictions on the persons affected by these regulations. Furthermore, any additional delay in making the regulations correct would be contrary to the public interest because it would allow an error in the FAA's regulations to persist for a longer period of time. Accordingly, the FAA finds that (i) public comment on these standards prior to promulgation is unnecessary, and (ii) good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30 days.

Background

In the final rule titled Safety Management System for Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holders, published on January 8, 2015 (80 FR1308), the FAA required air carriers operating under part 121 to develop and implement a safety management system (SMS) to improve the safety of its aviation-related activities. This rule is found in title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 5. Part 5 consists of six subparts: Subparts A through F.

Section 5.71(a)(6) requires a certificate holder to develop and maintain processes and systems to monitor potential non-compliance with safety risk controls developed through the safety risk management process. The safety risk management process is set out in Subpart C of part 5, but § 5.71(a)(6) erroneously cross-references Subpart B of part 5. Accordingly, this amendment corrects the cross-reference in § 5.71(a)(6) to refer to Subpart C of part 5.

Technical Amendment

The technical amendment corrects § 5.71(a)(6) so that it references Subpart C instead of Subpart B of part 5.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 5

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety and transportation.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 5—SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Pub. L. 111-216, sec. 215 (Aug.1, 2010); 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101,40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 46105.

§ 5.71 [Amended]
2. In § 5.71, paragraph (a)(6), remove the reference “subpart B” and add, in its place, the reference “subpart C”. Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a)(5) and Sec. 215 of Public Law 111-216, 124 Stat. 2350 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note) in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2017. Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-10739 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0123; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-033-AD; Amendment 39-18889; AD 2017-10-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a reported inability to extend the external handle of the emergency door from its recess due to a jammed spring mechanism. This AD requires a one-time functional check of each emergency door handle, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 55 05; email: MTA.T[email protected]; Internet: http://www.eads.net. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0123.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0123; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2017 (82 FR 12074) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a reported inability to extend the external handle of the emergency door from its recess due to a jammed spring mechanism. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time functional check of each emergency door handle, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct jamming of the door spring mechanism, which could lead to the inability to push out the emergency door external handle from its position normally aligned with the door skin. This condition could result in the inability to open the emergency door from outside during an emergency.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0051, dated March 11, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Failure to extend the external handle of emergency door from its recess was reported. As a consequence, it was impossible to open the rear emergency door from outside. Subsequent investigation determined that jamming of the door spring mechanism led to failure pushing out the emergency door external handle from its position normally aligned with the door skin.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure to open the emergency door from outside in an emergency.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus Defence&Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-52-0001 and AOT-C295-52-0001 to provide inspection instructions [and corrective actions if necessary].

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time functional check of [each of] the affected emergency door external handle[s] and, depending on findings, [detailed visual inspection for damage or unexpected material and] corrective action [repair]. This [EASA] AD also requires reporting the check result.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0123.

Comments

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

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed the following Airbus Defense and Space service information.

• Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-CN235-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014.

• Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C295-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014.

The service information describes procedures for a one-time functional check of each emergency door handle and corrective actions if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 27 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Functional Check: 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $2,295 Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 2,295

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-15 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Amendment 39-18889; Docket No. FAA-2017-0123; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-033-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a reported inability to extend the external handle of the emergency door from its recess due to a jammed spring mechanism. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct jamming of the door spring mechanism, which could lead to the inability to push out the emergency door external handle from its position normally aligned with the door skin. This condition could result in the inability to open the emergency door from outside during an emergency.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) One Time Functional Check

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time functional check of each emergency door handle in accordance with Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-CN235-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; or Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C295-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; as applicable.

    (h) Additional Actions for Discrepancies

    If any discrepancy (non-working emergency door handle) is found during the functional check required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Accomplish a detailed visual inspection for damage and unexpected material in accordance with Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-CN235-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; or Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C295-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; as applicable.

    (2) Repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Reporting

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) from the functional test required by paragraph (g) of this AD and the inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to Airbus Defense and Space in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-CN235-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; or Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C295-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014; as applicable; at the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) If the functional test or inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the functional test or inspection.

    (2) If the functional test or inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0051, dated March 11, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0123.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149.

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-CN235-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014.

    (ii) Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C295-52-0001, dated September 4, 2014.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 55 05; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.eads.net.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10267 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9507; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-127-AD; Amendment 39-18878; AD 2017-10-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Embraer S.A. Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes. This AD was prompted by changes to the airworthiness limitations, which add life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations that add life limits for previously unidentified landing gear parts. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.flyembraer.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9507.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9507; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Embraer S.A. Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2016 (81 FR 93647). The NPRM was prompted by changes to the airworthiness limitations, which add life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations that add life limits for previously unidentified landing gear parts. We are issuing this AD to prevent life-limited landing gear parts from being used beyond their safe-life limits, which could lead to collapse of the landing gear.

    The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2016-07-02, dated July 27, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Embraer S.A. Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes. The MCAI states:

    This [Brazilian] AD was prompted by changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Section of the Maintenance Review Board Report MRB 120-HI-200, which add life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified. We are issuing this [Brazilian] AD to prevent life-limited landing gear parts from being used beyond their safe-life limits, which could lead to collapse of the landing gear.

    This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations that add life limits for previously unidentified landing gear parts. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9507.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Embraer service information:

    • EMB-120 Brasilia Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report, Temporary Revision 28-1, dated May 17, 2016. This service information adds life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified to the airworthiness limitations section.

    • Alert Service Bulletin 120-32-A543, dated July 11, 2016. This service information provides procedures for replacement of affected parts.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 70 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Maintenance program revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $5,950
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-04 Embraer S.A.: Amendment 39-18878; Docket No. FAA-2016-9507; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-127-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model EMB-120, EMB-120ER, EMB-120FC, EMB-120QC, and EMB-120RT airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by changes to the airworthiness limitations, which add life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified. We are issuing this AD to prevent life-limited landing gear parts from being used beyond their safe-life limits, which could lead to collapse of the landing gear.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the life-limited landing gear parts and the applicable safe-life limits identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as specified in EMB-120 Brasilia Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report, Temporary Revision 28-1, dated May 17, 2016.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Life-Limited Landing Gear Parts Part No. Description Safe-life limits
  • (landings)
  • 19699-001-00 Pin drag strut, lower 104,054 19429-000-00 Piston tube (pre-modification Embraer Service Bulletin 120-032-0514) 30,000 19429-000-00 Piston tube (post-modification Embraer Service Bulletin 120-032-0514) 90,000 19946-001-00 Pin leg hinge 90,000 20030-001-00 Pin torque link 90,000 19437-000-00 Drag strut, upper half 104,054 20031-001-00 Pin drag strut hinge 104,054 19414-000-00 Piston tube 90,000 19919-000-00 Pin leg hinge 90,000
    (h) Replace Affected Parts

    The initial compliance time for the replacement of affected parts is specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. Replace affected parts with serviceable parts, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 120-32-A543, dated July 11, 2016.

    (1) Before the applicable safe-life limit identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (2) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD for parts on which the current status is unknown.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a main landing gear part or nose landing gear part having a part number identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, if it has reached or exceeded its safe-life limit, or if its current status is unknown.

    (j) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC); or ANAC's authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must include the Designee's authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Brazilian AD 2016-07-02, dated July 27, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9507.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) EMB-120 Brasilia Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report, Temporary Revision 28-1, dated May 17, 2016.

    (ii) Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 120-32-A543, dated July 11, 2016.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.flyembraer.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 2, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10284 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0158; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-040-AD; Amendment 39-18902; AD 2017-11-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders that are equipped with a Solo 2625 02 engine that has been modified with a fuel injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin (SB)/Technische Mitteilung (TM) 4600-3 “Fuel Injection System” and re-identified as Solo 2625 02i. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the connecting rod bearing resulting from too much load on the rod bearings from the engine control unit. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publications listed in the AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0158; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://aircraft.solo-online.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2017-0158.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2017 (82 FR 12312). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    Several occurrences have been reported of connecting rod bearing failure.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncommanded in-flight engine shut-down, possibly resulting in damage to the powered sailplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, Solo Kleinmotoren developed a software update for the engine control unit (ECU) to reduce the load on the rod bearings, and issued SB/TM 4600-6, providing instructions to upload the modified software into the ECU.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a modification, updating the ECU software.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0158-0002. Comments

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

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-6, Ausgabe 1 (English translation: Issue 1), dated November 16, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a software update that provides new settings to the engine control unit (ECU) to lower the load on the bearings of the crankshaft. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 3 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $510, or $170 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0158; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2017-11-03 DG Flugzeugbau GmbH: Amendment 39-18902; Docket No. FAA-2017-0158; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-040-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders, all serial numbers, that are:

    (1) Equipped with a Solo 2625 02 engine that has been modified with a fuel injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin (SB)/Technische Mitteilung (TM) 4600-3 “Fuel Injection System” and re-identified as Solo 2625 02i, and with a serial number (S/N) up to 369/207, except S/N's 354/194, 356/196, 357/197, 358/198, 361/201, 362/202, 363/203, 364/204, and 368/206; and

    (2) certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 73: Engine Fuel & Control.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the connecting rod bearing resulting from too much load on the rod bearings from the engine control unit. We are issuing this AD to prevent such failure that could lead to an uncommanded in-flight engine shut-down, which could result in damage to the glider.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD:

    (1) Within the next 60 days after June 29, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), modify the engine by installing a software update for the engine control unit (ECU) following the actions in Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-6, Ausgabe 1 (English translation: Issue 1), dated November 16, 2016.

    (2) After the modification of an engine as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do not install a replacement ECU on that engine and do not upload any software update to the ECU of that engine unless the ECU software version is as specified in Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-6, Ausgabe 1 (English translation: Issue 1), dated November 16, 2016.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(1) and (2) of this AD:

    This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information as it appears on the document.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any glider to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0254, dated December 15, 2016, correction dated January 4, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0158.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-6, Ausgabe 1 (English translation: Issue 1), dated November 16, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    Note 2 to paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this AD:

    This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information as it appears on the document.

    (3) For Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH service information identified in this AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://aircraft.solo-online.com.

    (4) You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0158-0002.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 15, 2017. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10392 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9524; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-049-AD; Amendment 39-18891; AD 2017-10-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-16-19 for all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2014-16-19 required revision of the maintenance or inspection program to include certain fuel airworthiness limitations. This new AD requires revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include new fuel airworthiness limitations. This new AD also removes certain airplanes from the applicability of AD 2014-16-19. This AD was prompted by the issuance of more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of September 25, 2014 (79 FR 49449, August 21, 2014).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9524.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9524; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-16-19, Amendment 39-17943 (79 FR 49449, August 21, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-19”). AD 2014-16-19 applied to all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2017 (82 FR 734). The NPRM was prompted by the issuance of more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations. The NPRM proposed to require revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include new fuel airworthiness limitations. The NPRM also proposed to remove certain airplanes from the applicability of AD 2014-16-19. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0065, dated April 5, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 series airplanes, Model A340-300 series airplanes, Model A340-500 series airplanes, and Model A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12. A design review was conducted by Airbus to develop Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL) for Airbus A330 and A340 aeroplanes in response to these regulations.

    The FAL, which are approved by EASA, are defined and published in Airbus A330 and A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents known as Part 5. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    EASA issued AD 2012-0168 [which corresponds with FAA AD 2014-16-19 for Model A330 airplanes, and FAA AD 2013-26-03, Amendment 39-17712 (78 FR 79292, December 30, 2013) for Model A340 airplanes] to require compliance with the FAL as specified in the A330 and A340 ALS Part 5 Revision 00.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus issued Revision 01 of both ALS Parts 5 for Airbus A330 and A340 to introduce more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0168, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 5 Revision 01, A340 ALS Part 5 Revision 01, as applicable (hereafter collectively referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9524.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International expressed support for the NPRM.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL), Revision 01, dated October 28, 2015. These airworthiness limitations introduce more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 104 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2014-16-19, and retained in this AD, take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-16-19 is $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,840, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-16-19, Amendment 39-17943 (79 FR 49449, August 21, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2017-10-17 Airbus: Amendment 39-18891; Docket No. FAA-2016-9524; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-049-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-16-19, Amendment 39-17943 (79 FR 49449, August 21, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-19”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before October 28, 2015.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the issuance of more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Maintenance Program Revision and Airworthiness Limitations Compliance, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-16-19, with no changes.

    (1) Within 3 months after September 25, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-16-19), revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL), dated November 16, 2011.

    (2) Comply with all applicable instructions and airworthiness limitations included in Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—FAL, dated November 16, 2011. The initial compliance times for the actions specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—FAL, dated November 16, 2011, are at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, except as required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.

    (i) Within the applicable compliance times specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—FAL, dated November 16, 2011.

    (ii) Within 3 months after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    (h) Retained Exceptions to Compliance Times for Design Changes, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph (h) of AD 2014-16-19, with no changes.

    (1) For type design changes specified in “Sub-part 5-2 Changes to Type Design,” of Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—FAL, dated November 16, 2011, the compliance times are defined as “Embodiment Limits,” except as defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

    (2) Where Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—FAL, dated November 16, 2011, specifies a compliance time based on a calendar date for modifying the control circuit for the fuel pump of the center fuel tank (installing ground fault interrupters to the center tank fuel pump control circuit), the compliance date is September 18, 2016 (48 months after the effective date of AD 2012-16-05, Amendment 39-17152 (77 FR 48425, August 14, 2012)).

    (i) Retained No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With Added Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2014-16-19, with an added exception. Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD: After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used; except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD; or unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

    (j) New Requirement of This AD: Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—FAL, Revision 01, dated October 28, 2015. The compliance times for accomplishing the initial tasks specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—FAL, Revision 01, dated October 28, 2015, are at the times specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—FAL, Revision 01, dated October 28, 2015, or within 3 months after revising the maintenance or inspection program as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) New Requirement of This AD: No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or CDCCLs

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0065, dated April 5, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9524.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 29, 2017.

    (i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL), Revision 01, dated October 28, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 25, 2014 (79 FR 49449, August 21, 2014).

    (i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL), dated November 16, 2011. The cover page of this document is undated and identified as Revision 00.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.com.

    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10281 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9075; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-082-AD; Amendment 39-18890; AD 2017-10-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a portion of the sealant above the engine pylon between the wing skin and the vapor barrier might have been omitted. This AD requires an inspection for missing sealant in the seam on the outside and inside of the engine struts, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9075.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9075; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6501; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2016 (81 FR 63433). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that a portion of the sealant above the engine pylon between the wing skin and the vapor barrier might have been omitted. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection for missing sealant in the seam on the outside and inside of the engine struts, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing sealant above the engine pylon between the wing skin and the vapor barrier, which can create an unintended leak path for fuel, potentially draining onto the aft fairing heat shield above the engine and onto hot engine parts or brakes, which could lead to a major ground fire.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Support for the NPRM

    Boeing and United Airlines (UAL) expressed support for the NPRM.

    Request To Refer to Revised Service Information

    UAL requested that we revise the proposed AD to refer to Issue 002 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570029-00. UAL stated that it disagrees with the finish requirement being an RC task. UAL pointed out that there is already an airworthiness limitation (AWL)/Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) task, 51-AWL-01, for a paint requirement on the wing, resulting in a redundant AD requirement. UAL explained that Boeing plans to revise the service information to remove the requirement for applying finish over the newly applied sealant as a required for compliance (RC) task.

    We do not agree with UAL's request to revise this AD. When we incorporate service information by reference, we refer to approved or published service information. At the time of this action, Issue 002 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B78781205-SB570029-00 is not approved or published. We do not consider that delaying this action until after the release of a service bulletin revision is warranted. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570029-00, Issue 001, dated February 23, 2016, provides instructions that adequately address the missing sealant above the engine pylon between the wing skin and the vapor barrier, and provides the necessary steps to restore the finish disturbed by the required work.

    In addition, although UAL stated that Boeing plans to eliminate the RC designation for the finish restoration steps, Boeing has not received agreement from the FAA that such a proposal would be approved. The proper restoration of the finish, and particularly the thickness of the entire set of finish layers, is safety critical for the reasons stated in the related AWL. We do not view the AD requirement for finish restoration to be redundant relative to the AWL. The AWL requires that, following maintenance, alteration, and repair activity, the finish must be restored to the specifications contained in the AWL. We, therefore, expect the data used for any maintenance, alteration, or repair activity that disturbs that finish (in this case Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570029-00, Issue 001, dated February 23, 2016) to contain instructions that result in restoration of the finish to the standard contained in the AWL. For these reasons, we do not agree with elimination of the RC designation for the referenced steps.

    We also do not agree that an operator can develop their own alternative finish restoration procedures without FAA or Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) engineering review and approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570029-00, Issue 001, dated February 23, 2016. The service information describes procedures for doing an inspection for missing sealant in the seam on the outside and inside of the engine struts, and installing missing sealant. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 32 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $8,160

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair Up to 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 (1) (1) 1 We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition material costs specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-16 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18890; Docket No. FAA-2016-9075; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-082-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570029-00, Issue 001, dated February 23, 2016.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a portion of the sealant above the engine pylon between the wing skin and the vapor barrier might have been omitted. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing sealant above the engine pylon between the wing skin and the vapor barrier, which can create an unintended leak path for fuel, potentially draining onto the aft fairing heat shield and onto hot engine parts or brakes, which could lead to a major ground fire.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection for missing sealant in the seam on the outside and inside of the engine struts, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570029-00, Issue 001, dated February 23, 2016. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570029-00, Issue 001, dated February 23, 2016.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact David Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle ACO, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6501; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570029-00, Issue 001, dated February 23, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10283 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9438; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-109-AD; Amendment 39-18873; AD 2017-09-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of interruptions in the airstair door operation. This AD requires repetitive inspections and modification of the handrail hardware. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9438.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9438; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar A. Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2016 (81 FR 91058) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of interruptions in the airstair door operation. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections and modification of the handrail hardware. We are issuing this AD to ensure the ability to evacuate passengers through the airstair door in the event of an emergency.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-02, dated January 27, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ”the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A number of airstair door operation interruptions have been reported. In one case, the airstair door could not be opened. It was found that the airstair door handrail holder bracket was deformed and became lodged into the adjacent wardrobe bulkhead, which prevented the door from opening.

    On airstair doors with Jetway Compatible option, a deformed handrail holder bracket or a failure of the pin retainer bracket can interfere with the operation of the airstair door and prevent it from opening.

    The airstair door is classified as an emergency exit. The inability to open an emergency exit could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive inspection of airstair door handrail hardware, and the modification of the handrail stowage hardware.

    Required actions include applicable corrective actions (replacing or removing brackets, installing lanyards, adjusting pins, and adjusting affected parts of the assembly). You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9438.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. issued Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection to detect deformities and cracks of the forward and aft handle holder brackets on the airstair handrail; a detailed visual inspection of the forward and aft pin retainer brackets for the condition of the lanyards and the pins; a check for unobstructed movement of the pin retainer brackets; and rework of the airstair door handrail to prevent damage to the bulkhead and to prevent the door from jamming once the handrails are stowed. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Repetitive inspections 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection cycle $0 $85 per inspection cycle $6,970 per inspection cycle. Modification 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 1,556 $1,811 $148,502.

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-09-11 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18873; Docket No. FAA-2016-9438; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-109-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 through 4473 inclusive, equipped with Bombardier ModSum 4-422100 or ModSum 4-458687 (Jetway Compatible Passenger Airstair Door).

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of interruptions in the airstair door operation, including one case where the door would not open. The airstair door is classified as an emergency exit. We are issuing this AD to ensure the ability to evacuate passengers through the airstair door in the event of an emergency.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Inspections of the Forward and Aft Handle Holder Brackets and Forward and Aft Pin Retainer Brackets, Repetitive Checks, and Corrective Actions

    Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection of the forward and aft handle holder brackets for damage, such as visible cracks and deformation; a detailed visual inspection of the forward and aft pin retainer brackets to make sure that both lanyards are installed and to make sure that the head of each pin is installed correctly; a check of the pin retainer brackets for unobstructed movement; an operational check of the forward passenger door; and all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with PART A1 and PART A2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016, except as required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections and checks thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours until the terminating action required by paragraph (h) of this AD is accomplished.

    (1) If one or both lanyards are missing, before further flight, install lanyards as specified in, and in accordance with PART A1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016.

    (2) If a pin is not installed correctly, as specified in PART A1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016, before further flight, adjust the affected pin until it is installed correctly as specified in, and in accordance with, PART A1 of the Accomplishment Instructions Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016.

    (3) If a pin retainer bracket does not rotate freely, before further flight, adjust affected parts of the assembly until the pin retainer bracket rotates freely as specified in, and in accordance with, PART A1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016.

    (h) Terminating Action

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Incorporate Bombardier ModSum 4-903234 to modify the installed jetway compatible handrail stowage bracket, in accordance with PART A3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016. Incorporating Bombardier ModSum 4-903234 terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, dated May 1, 2014.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision A, dated November 18, 2014.

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision B, dated April 8, 2015.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian A D CF-2015-02, dated January 27, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9438.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact the Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531.

    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 27, 2017. Paul Bernado, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10339 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8848; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-054-AD; Amendment 39-18895; AD 2017-10-21] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires modification of the lap joint and repetitive inspections for cracking of the skin at critical fastener rows. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8848.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8848; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and 0500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59541) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the fuselage skin is subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require modification of the lap joint, including related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require repetitive post-modification inspections for cracking of the skin at critical fastener rows, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks at the lap joint skin that could link up and result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Remove Certain References in Terminating Action

    Boeing requested that we remove certain references to AD 2015-16-08, Amendment 39-18233 (80 FR 51450, August 25, 2015) (“AD 2015-16-08”). Boeing pointed out that paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of AD 2015-16-08 refer to a location (S-4R, Station (STA) 908-STA 1016) that is outside of the area affected by the modification specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (S-4L and S-4R, STA 360-STA 908).

    We agree with the commenter. Specifically, paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2015-16-08 apply to the modification area specified in this AD, but paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of AD 2015-16-08 do not. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to remove reference to paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of AD 2015-16-08.

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1343, dated March 25, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modification of the lap joint, including related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. The service information also describes procedures for post-modification inspections for cracking of the skin at critical fastener rows, and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 115 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Lap joint skin modification 2,142 work-hours × $85 per hour = $182,070 per modification $12,500 $194,570 $22,375,550. Post-Modification inspection 102 work-hours × $85 per hour = $8,670 per inspection cycle 0 8,670 per inspection cycle 997,050 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-21 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18895; Docket No. FAA-2016-8848; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-054-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2015-16-08, Amendment 39-18233 (80 FR 51450, August 25, 2015) (“AD 2015-16-08”).

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1343, dated March 25, 2016; except for Group 5 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1343, dated March 25, 2016.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/EBD1CEC7B301293E86257CB30045557A?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks at the lap joint skin that could link up and result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Lap Joint Skin Modification

    Before the accumulation of 50,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Modify the lap joint skin, including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1343, dated March 25, 2016, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (h) Inspection of the Critical Fastener Rows

    Within 38,000 flight cycles after modifying the lap joint skin as required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Inspect the skin at critical fastener rows by doing the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1343, dated March 25, 2016. If any crack is found during any inspection, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles in unrepaired areas.

    (1) From the inside of the airplane: Do a low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection for any crack in the skin at the critical fastener row, and a medium frequency eddy current (MFEC) inspection for any crack in the skin at the critical fastener row.

    (2) From the outside of the airplane: Do a LFEC inspection for any crack in the fuselage skin.

    (i) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1343, dated March 25, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (j) AD Provisions for Part 26 Supplemental Inspections

    Table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1343, dated March 25, 2016, specifies post-modification airworthiness limitation inspections in compliance with 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the modified locations, which support compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2). As airworthiness limitations, these inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore unnecessary to mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these inspections require FAA approval, but do not require an alternative method of compliance.

    (k) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2015-16-08

    Accomplishing the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2015-16-08 for the modified area only.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1343, dated March 25, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10265 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-181-AD; Amendment 39-18879; AD 2017-10-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). This AD was prompted by reports indicating that on airplanes that received a certain repair following crack findings, cracks can re-initiate. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the center wing frame (FR) 40 lower outboard radius for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0084.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2016 (81 FR 78944) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2015 (80 FR 7992) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the FR 40 forward fittings for airplanes previously repaired. The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that, on airplanes that received a certain repair following crack findings, cracks can re-initiate. The SNPRM proposed to require repetitive rototest, ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, special detailed, and liquid penetrant inspections, as applicable, of the center wing FR 40 lower outboard radius for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The SNPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the FR 40 forward fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0232R1, dated December 16, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found on the lower outboard radius of the centre wing frame 40 forward fitting on in-service aeroplanes.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued several inspection Service Bulletins (SB) and repair instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2009-0094, which was later superseded by EASA AD 2011-0163 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012-25-06, Amendment 39-17287 (77 FR 75833, December 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-25-06”)] and [EASA] AD 2014-0199 [which corresponds to the FAA NPRM], to require repetitive inspections and corrective actions on the affected areas.

    Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, additional in-service findings induced Airbus to do a new fatigue analysis, using a detailed Finite Element Model study, which resulted in defining new inspection methods. Prompted by these results, Airbus issued SB A300-57-0261, SB A300-57-6117 and SB A300-57-9034 to introduce these inspections. These new inspection SBs supersede and render obsolete inspection SB A300-53-0268 and SB A300-57-6052 and the All Operators Transmissions (AOT) A300-53A0391, AOT A300-57A6111, AOT A300-53W002-14 and AOT A300-57W003-14.

    For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0232, superseding [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] DGAC France AD 1998-038-010(B) R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-25-07, Amendment 39-10933 (63 FR 68167, December 10, 1998) (“AD 98-25-07”)] and [DGAC France] AD 2003-189(B), and EASA AD 2011-0163 and [EASA] AD 2014-0199, to require the new inspections of the affected areas within new thresholds and intervals.

    This [EASA] AD is revised to clarify the compliance time(s), introducing a Note after paragraph (1), and to alleviate the reporting requirements of paragraph (3).

    Required actions include repetitive rototest, ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, special detailed, and liquid penetrant inspections, as applicable, of the center wing FR 40 lower outboard radius for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0084.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015.

    The service information describes procedures for repetitive ultrasonic, rototest, high frequency eddy current, special detailed, and liquid penetrant inspections, and related investigative and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD.

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections Up to 91 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,735 per inspection cycle Up to $7,735 per inspection cycle Up to $224,315 per inspection cycle. Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $85 $2,465.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-18879; Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-181-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 98-25-07, Amendment 39-10933 (63 FR 68167, December 10, 1998) (“AD 98-25-07”); and AD 2012-25-06, Amendment 39-17287 (77 FR 75833, December 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-25-06”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10221 has been embodied in production.

    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.

    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the lower outboard radius of the center wing frame (FR) 40 forward fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the FR 40 forward fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.(2), “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; accomplish rototest, ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, special detailed, and liquid penetrant inspections, as applicable, of the center wing FR 40 lower outboard radius for cracking, and do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; as applicable. Do all applicable related investigative actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. (2), “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015.

    (h) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any crack is found, before further flight, accomplish the applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; as applicable; except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Service Information Exception

    (1) Where the service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies a compliance time “from this service bulletin issuance date,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where the service information specified in paragraph (h) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for certain conditions, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (j) No Terminating Action for This AD

    Accomplishing a corrective action required by paragraph (h) of this AD, or accomplishing a preventative action specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0260 or A300-57-6116, as applicable, does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 98-25-07.

    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of AD 2012-25-06.

    (l) Reporting Requirements

    Within 60 days after any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report any findings, positive or negative, to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/).

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0232R1, dated December 16, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0084.

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 2, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10285 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9550; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-026-AD; Amendment 39-18894; AD 2017-10-20] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325, and PA-31-350 airplanes. This AD was prompted by fatigue cracking in the fuselage station (FS) 332.00 bulkhead common to the horizontal stabilizer front spar attachment. This AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the bulkhead and any necessary repairs. This AD also provides an optional modification if no cracks are found that will greatly reduce the likelihood of the specified cracks. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.piper.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9550.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9550; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-5606; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325, and PA-31-350 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2017 (82 FR 48). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the FS 332.00 bulkhead common to the horizontal stabilizer front spar attachment on Piper Aircraft, Inc. PA-31 airplanes. Cracks in the bulkhead could compromise the structural component's capability to carry flight loads, increasing the potential to overload and fail adjacent structure. The NPRM proposed to provide an optional modification if no cracks are found that will greatly reduce the likelihood of the specified cracks. We are issuing this AD to detect and repair cracks in the bulkhead that could lead to structural failure and result in loss of control.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request Change to Labor Estimates

    Joe M. Miller, Chief Inspector for Warbelow's Air Ventures, Inc. in Fairbanks, Alaska, stated they have complied with the proposed requirement on 3 airplanes and find that it takes 2 mechanics about 6 hours each (12 man-hours) to accomplish just the inspection phase. The commenter states that to better access the affected areas it is easier to remove both horizontal stabilizers. In total, it takes a crew of 2 about 4 days (64 man-hours) to accomplish the complete process from inspection to return to service.

    We partially agree. We agree with revising the labor estimates for both the inspection and modification because of the additional operator data. Also, we will ensure the access time is included in both the inspection and modification estimates. Because the original time estimate was provided by another experienced operator, we will update the estimate to reflect an average of the two reported times. We disagree with using a combined estimate of 64 hours because the inspection and modification are estimated separately. We will make the following changes to the AD based on this comment:

    • Update the inspection labor estimate from 1 hour to 12 hours; and

    • Update the modification labor estimate from 26 to 45 hours.

    Question on Airplanes That Have Previously Complied

    Joe M. Miller, Chief Inspector, Warbelow's Air Ventures, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska, asked that we provide reference to those airplanes that have previously complied with Service Bulletin 1289A and installed kit 88578-001 Rev B. The commenter stated the NPRM only addresses the initial inspection and modification of FS 332 and does not address airplanes that have previously complied with Piper MSB 1289A by inspection and subsequent installation of the Piper Kit 88578-001 Rev B.

    We do not agree because paragraph (f) of the AD addresses this situation with the phrase “unless already done.”

    We have not changed the AD based on this comment.

    Request To Extend the Initial Compliance Time

    Roger Braun asked that we extend the initial compliance time because his impression is that the cracks were found solely on one very high-time (20,000 hour plus) airplane, and he perceives 3,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) as too early to start the inspection intervals based on the finding.

    We do not agree because the airplane design is intended to provide a service life that is crack-free. When cracks are found in service, a management program is put in place (reference Advisory Circular 91-82). It is true that the crack was found on an airplane with over 20,000 hours. The compliance time for the management program is based on the known failure time but must include safety and statistical reduction factors (reference Advisory Circular 23-13). Starting inspections at 3,000 hours TIS ensures any cracks that form will be found early enough to prevent an unsafe condition. While it may appear excessive, the compliance time is set to meet the design intent of a crack-free operation.

    We have not changed the AD based on this comment.

    Request for a Visual Inspection

    Roger Braun asked that we allow for a visual inspection instead of a penetrant inspection because the parts involve a simple visual inspection. The commenter suggested that 10x glass would suffice instead of stripping paint and doing a dye-penetrant inspection. Then, a penetrant could be used if any cracks are suspected.

    We do not agree because the cleaning and penetrant method has higher detection reliability than a purely visual method. The reliability of the inspection method is tied to the compliance time for the repetitive inspection and deferral of the permanent modification. Once the AD is published, the commenter may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for the visual inspection method. The request, including all substantiating data, may be submitted following 14 CFR 39.19 as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

    We have not changed the AD based on this comment.

    Clarification on Installation of the Kit

    Tim Glubaskas, Director of Maintenance, Warbelow's Air Ventures, asked for a clarification on whether installation of the kit terminates the repetitive inspections.

    That kit installation is terminating action for the repetitive inspection. This is addressed in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this AD when the kit is used as a repair for cracks and in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD when the kit is used as a modification with no cracks.

    We have not changed the AD based on this comment.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

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

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

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016. The service information describes procedures for the repetitive inspections, necessary repairs, and the optional modification of the bulkhead. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 955 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspect for cracks in the bulkhead 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 Not Applicable $1,020 $974,100

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs/replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs/replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair/Modification 45 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,825 $296 $4,121
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-20 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-18894; Docket No. FAA-2016-9550; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-026-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Navajo Models PA-31, PA-31-300, and PA-31-325, serial numbers 31-2 through 31-900, and 31-7300901 through 31-8312019; and Chieftain/T-1020 Models PA-31-350, serial numbers 31-5001 through 31-5004, and 31-7305005 through 31-8553002, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: The Model PA-31 may also be identified as a PA-31-310 even though the PA-31-310 is not a model recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the type certificate data sheet.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 5312: Fuselage—Main Bulkhead.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fatigue cracking in the fuselage station (FS) 332.00 bulkhead common to the horizontal stabilizer front spar attachment. This AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the bulkhead and any necessary repairs. This AD also provides an optional modification if no cracks are found that will greatly reduce the likelihood of the specified cracks. Cracks in the bulkhead could compromise the structural components capability to carry flight loads, increasing the potential to overload and fail adjacent structure and lead to loss of control.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Actions

    (1) For airplanes with 3,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) or less as of June 29, 2017 (the effective date of this AD): Initially within 500 hours TIS after reaching 3,000 hours TIS and repetitively thereafter every 200 hours TIS, inspect the fuselage station (FS) 332.00 bulkhead assembly for cracks following the instructions in Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin (SB) No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016.

    (2) For airplanes with over 3,000 hours TIS as of June 29, 2017 (the effective date of this AD): Initially within the next 500 hours TIS after June 29, 2017 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter every 200 hours TIS, inspect the FS 332.00 bulkhead assembly for cracks, following the instructions in Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. SB No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016.

    (3) If cracks are found during any of the inspections required in paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracks following the modification instructions in Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. SB No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016, and one of the following as applicable:

    (i) If the crack does not extend beyond the inspection/template area of figure 2 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. SB No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016, and meets the minimum acceptable distance in figure 3 and table 2 of Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. SB No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016, then the installation of Piper Kit 88578-001 Revision B, dated June 23, 2016, is acceptable as a repair and is considered terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.

    (ii) If the crack extends beyond the inspection/template area of figure 2 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. SB No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016, or does not meet the minimum acceptable distance in figure 3 and table 2 of Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. SB No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016, then the installation of Piper Kit 88578-001 Revision B, dated June 23, 2016, is not an acceptable repair. You must obtain an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for any repair or modification in this area. You may contact Piper Aircraft, Inc. for repair instruction development specific to this condition. For contact information refer to paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (4) If no cracks are found, you may install Piper Kit 88578-001 Revision B, dated June 23, 2016, on an uncracked bulkhead following the Modification instructions in Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. SB No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016. Installation of Piper Kit 88578-001 Revision B, dated June 23, 2016, on an uncracked bulkhead is considered terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.

    (h) Special Flight Permit

    A special flight permit is allowed for this AD per 14 CFR 39.23 with limitations. Permits are only allowed for the inspections required by this AD and are not allowed if cracks are discovered during any inspection following Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. SB No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016. Any cracks found during any inspection must be repaired before further flight.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-5606; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.piper.com. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-5606; email: [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1289A, dated October 26, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; fax: none; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.piper.com.

    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 10, 2017. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10407 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0114; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-03-AD; Amendment 39-18880; AD 2017-10-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines. This AD requires fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the compressor intermediate case (CIC) for cracking. This AD was prompted by CICs that were weld repaired and have a higher probability of cracking as a result of the weld repair process. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective June 9, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 9, 2017.

    We must receive comments on this AD by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0114.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0114; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0114; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-03-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0071, dated April 26, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been determined that certain compressor intermediate cases (CIC), repaired by RR Repair FRSC005, have a higher probability of cracking, due to increased residual stresses which were applied during the weld repair process. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to CIC failure, possibly resulting in damage to, and/or reduced control of, the aeroplane. To address this potential unsafe condition, RR released Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AH976, later revised, providing inspection instructions. For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI) of each affected CIC and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0114.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    RR has issued Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH976, Revision 2, dated March 16, 2017. The Alert NMSB describes procedures for FPI of the CIC that have RR Repair FRSC005 applied to them. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires one-time FPI of each affected CIC and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Inspection 2.0 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170.00 $0 $170.00 $0
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-06 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-18880; Docket No. FAA-2017-0114; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-03-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 9, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, RB211 Trent 772-60, and RB211 Trent 772B-60 turbofan engines that have a compressor intermediate case (CIC) that was repaired using RR Repair FRSC005.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by CICs that were weld repaired and have a higher probability of cracking due to increased residual stresses as a result of the weld repair process. We are issuing this AD to prevent CIC failure, engine separation and loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) Inspect repaired CICs during the next shop visit, or within 6,000 engine flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, using paragraph 3.B.(1)(c) of the Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AH976, Revision 2, dated March 16, 2017.

    (2) If a CIC fails inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, either repair the CIC using paragraph 3.B.(2)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH976, Revision 2, dated March 16, 2017, or, replace the CIC with a part eligible for installation, before next flight.

    (h) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance or overhaul that requires the separation of major mating engine module flanges. The separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transporting the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.

    (i) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected intermediate module on an engine unless the CIC has passed the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the inspections and corrective action required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if you performed these actions before the effective date of this AD using RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH976, original issue, dated November 3, 2016 or RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH976, Revision 1, dated November 17, 2016.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), AD 2017-0071, dated April 26, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0114.

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Rolls-Royce plc Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AH976, Revision 2, dated March 16, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Rolls-Royce plc service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    (5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 4, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Acting Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10438 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8428; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-032-AD; Amendment 39-18898; AD 2017-10-24] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-17-09 for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and AD 2012-25-12 for all Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-17-09 required revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. AD 2012-25-12 required replacing certain main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams before reaching new reduced life limits. This new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new, more restrictive, or revised instructions and/or airworthiness limitation requirements. This AD was prompted by revisions to certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of January 30, 2013 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012).

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of September 30, 2011 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011).

    ADDRESSES:

    For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this final rule, contact Messier-Bugatti USA, One Carbon Way, Walton, KY 41094; telephone 859-525-8583; fax 859-485 8827; email [email protected]

    You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8428.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8428; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011) (“AD 2011-17-09”); and AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-25-12”). AD 2011-17-09 applied to all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2012-25-12 applied to all Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2016 (81 FR 91062). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1570). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations should be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. The SNPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations that the manufacturer has recently issued. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive, 2014-0009, dated January 8, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus aeroplanes are currently published in Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents.

    The instructions and airworthiness limitations applicable to the Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL ALI) are given in Airbus A330 ALS Part 1 and A340 ALS Part 1, which are approved by EASA.

    The revision 07 of Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 1 introduces more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. Failure to comply with this revision could result in an unsafe condition.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0179, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A330 or A340 ALS Part 1 revision 07.

    In addition, this [EASA] AD also supersedes EASA AD 2011-0122-E and EASA AD 2011-0212, whose requirements have been transferred into Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 1 revision 07.

    The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8428.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Revision 08, dated April 11, 2016. Messier-Bugatti-Dowty has issued Service Letter A33-34 A20, Revision 7, including Appendixes A through F, dated July 20, 2012. This service information describes SL-ALI for the landing gear. This service information is distinct since it was issued by two different manufacturers for different purposes.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions that are required by AD 2011-17-09, and retained in this AD, take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2011-17-09 is $85 per product.

    The actions that are required by AD 2012-25-12, and retained in this AD, take about 16 work-hours, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, with required parts cost of about $255,000 per MLG bogie beam. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-25-12 is up to $256,360 per MLG bogie beam.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,970, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2.The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011); and AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012); and adding the following new AD: 2017-10-24 Airbus: Amendment 39-18898; Docket No. FAA-2015-8428; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-032-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-17-09, Amendment 39-16773 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011) (“AD 2011-17-09”); and AD 2012-25-12, Amendment 39-17293 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-25-12”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before April 11, 2016.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic inspections.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by revisions to certain airworthiness limitation item documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Maintenance Program Revision, With New Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2011-17-09, with new terminating action. Within 3 months after September 30, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-17-09): Revise the maintenance program by incorporating Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI), Revision 05, dated July 29, 2010. Comply with all ALIs in Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Revision 05, dated July 29, 2010, at the times specified therein. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (h) Retained Limitation of No Alternative Intervals or Limits, With Additional Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2011-17-09, with additional exception. Except as provided by paragraphs (k) and (m)(1) of this AD, after accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternatives to the maintenance tasks, intervals, or limitations specified in paragraph (g) of this AD may be used.

    (i) Retained Bogie Beam Replacement, With Specific Delegation Approval Language, New Terminating Action, and New Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-25-12, with specific delegation approval language and terminating action and new service information. For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this AD: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, replace all main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams having part number (P/N) 201485300, 201485301, 201272302, 201272304, 201272306, or 201272307, except those that have serial number (S/N) S2A, S2B, or S2C, as identified in Messier-Dowty Service Letter A33-34 A20, Revision 5, including Appendixes A through F, dated July 31, 2009; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Letter A33-34 A20, Revision 7, including Appendixes A through F, dated July 20, 2012; with a new or serviceable part, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). As of the effective date of this AD, the applicable MLG bogie beams specified in this paragraph must be replaced using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243 series airplanes, weight variant (WV)02x, WV05x (except WV058), and WV06x series: Before the accumulation of a life limit of 50,000 landings or 72,300 total flight hours, whichever occurs first from the first installation of a MLG bogie beam on the airplane.

    (ii) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243 WV058 series airplanes: Before the accumulation of a life limit of 50,000 landings or 57,900 total flight hours, whichever occurs first from the first installation of a MLG bogie beam on the airplane.

    (iii) For Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343 series airplanes, WV00x, WV01x, WV02x, and WV05x series: Before the accumulation of a life limit of 46,000 landings or 75,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first from the first installation of a MLG bogie beam on the airplane.

    (2) Within 6 months after January 30, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2012-25-12).

    (j) Retained Parts Installation Limitation, With New Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-25-12, with new terminating action. For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this AD, as of January 30, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2012-25-12), a MLG bogie beam having any part number identified in paragraph (i) of this AD may be installed on an airplane, provided its life has not exceeded the life limit specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD, and it is replaced with a new or serviceable part before reaching the life limit specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (k) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the information in Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Revision 08, dated April 11, 2016. The initial compliance times for the actions specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Revision 08, dated April 11, 2016, are at the times specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Revision 08, dated April 11, 2016, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements specified in paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD.

    (l) New Limitation of No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0009, dated January 8, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8428.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 29, 2017.

    (i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 08, dated April 11, 2016.

    (ii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Letter A33-34 A20, Revision 7, including Appendixes A through F, dated July 20, 2012.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 30, 2013 (77 FR 75825, December 26, 2012).

    (i) Messier-Dowty Service Letter A33-34 A20, Revision 5, including Appendixes A through F, dated July 31, 2009.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 30, 2011 (76 FR 53305, August 26, 2011).

    (i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section, Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 05, dated July 29, 2010. The revision level of this document is indicated only on the title page and in the Record of Revisions; the revision date of this document is not indicated on the title page of this document.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (6) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (7) For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier-Bugatti USA, One Carbon Way, Walton, KY 41094; telephone 859-525-8583; fax 859-485 8827; email [email protected]

    (8) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (9) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10266 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8849; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-174-AD; Amendment 39-18892; AD 2017-10-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330-223F, -223, -321, -322, and -323 airplanes. This AD was prompted by fatigue load analysis that determined the need for reduced inspection intervals and updated torque values of the bolts. This AD requires repetitive torque checks of the forward engine mount bolts, an inspection of the forward mount assembly, and replacement of the bolts or repair of the forward mount assembly as necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8849.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8849; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A330-223F, -223, -321, -322, and -323 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59535). The NPRM was prompted by fatigue load analysis that determined the need for reduced inspection intervals (for torque checks required by AD 2013-14-04, Amendment 39-17509 (78 FR 68352, November 14, 2013) (“AD 2013-14-04”)) and updated torque values of the bolts. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive torque checks to determine if there are any loose or broken forward engine mount bolts, and, if necessary, replacement of all four forward engine mount bolts and associated nuts, inspection of the forward mount assembly, and repair. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loose and broken bolts, which could lead to engine detachment in flight and damage to the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0214, dated October 19, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-223F, -223, -321, -322, and -323 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The forward mount engine pylon bolts, Part Number (P/N) 51U615, fitted on Airbus A330 aeroplanes with Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4000 engines, are made from MP159 material. Analysis made by PW identified that MP159 material pylon bolts do not meet the full life cycle torque check interval requirement, in a bolt-out condition. Consequently, PW issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-100-A71-32, and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as Engine Certification Authority, issued FAA AD 2006-16-05 [Amendment 39-14705 (71 FR 44185, August 4, 2006) (“AD 2006-16-05”)] to require repetitive torque checks of MP159 material forward mount pylon bolts fitted on certain PW4000 series engines.

    However, the engine mount system is considered to be part of aeroplane certification rather than the engine certification. Following further fatigue load analysis by Airbus of the A330 engine mount system, it was determined that the torque check interval for MP159 material forward mount pylon bolts, as required by FAA AD 2006-16-05 (2,700 flight cycles (FC)), provided an insufficient level of safety for Airbus A330 aeroplanes.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could ultimately lead to detachment of the engine from the aeroplane, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2012-0094 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-14-04] to require accomplishment of repetitive torque checks of the forward mount pylon bolts installed on affected A330 aeroplanes and, depending on findings, replacement of all four bolts and associated nuts, in accordance with PW ASB PW4G-100-A71-32 Revision 01 and Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-71-3028.

    Since that AD was issued, it has been concluded that a new torque value must be applied.

    Consequently, Airbus issued SB A330-71-3028 Revision 02 and PW issued ASB PW4G-100-A71-32 Revision 02 to update the torque value. Additional forward mount inspections are also provided in case of one or more forward engine mount bolts is found loose, broken or missing.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0094, which is superseded, introduces a new torque value, and requires additional inspections and, depending on findings, corrective action(s).

    Corrective actions include repetitive torque checks to determine if there are any loose or broken forward engine mount bolts on both engines, and, if necessary, replacement of all four forward engine mount bolts and associated nuts, inspection of the forward mount assembly, and repair. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8849.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Correct Typographical Error

    American Airlines (AA) requested that we correct the reference to the FAA AD in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD, which incorrectly identified AD 2013-13-05. The correct AD number for this terminating action is 2013-14-04.

    We agree and have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD accordingly.

    Request To Clarify Compliance Time

    AA requested that we clarify the compliance time for airplanes with an average flight time (AFT) of more than 132 minutes for the second cycle interval (1,851-2,700 flight cycles). AA proposed that we revise the second row of table 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD by referring to the specified compliance times since accomplishing actions in AD 2013-14-04.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. The compliance times for the initial and repetitive torque checks required by AD 2013-14-04 are identified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD (table 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD). The compliance times include specified flight cycles since the last torque check specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-32, which operators might have accomplished to comply with AD 2013-14-04. Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD requires that the next torque check be done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated August 31, 2015 (“A330-71-3028, R02”). Accomplishment of the torque check required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2013-14-04. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

    Request To Clarify Terminating Action

    Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD stated that accomplishment of the actions specified by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD “constitutes compliance with” the requirements specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2006-16-05. AA requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to specifically state that the new AD would also “terminate” the inspection specified in AD 2006-16-05.

    We agree with the commenter. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to state that accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2006-16-05.

    Request To Allow Use of Higher Torque Values

    AA requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the proposed AD to specifically allow early compliance with the AD upon its release and prior to the effective date of the AD, using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, R02. AA stated that this would allow operators to immediately begin using the higher torque values specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, R02. AA stated that as written, the AD would not allow operators to immediately use the higher torque values specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, R02, because AD 2013-14-04 specifies the use of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 01, dated February 12, 2012, which contains lower torque values. AA stated that this would preclude the need for a request for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) against AD 2013-14-04 to allow the use of the higher torque values, and that this change would streamline the compliance revision process.

    We acknowledge the request and agree that clarification is necessary. Because AD 2013-14-04 requires using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 01, dated February 12, 2012, operators need approval to use Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, R02, as an AMOC for the requirements of AD 2013-14-04. We have issued global AMOC ANM-116-17-243, dated April 4, 2017, approving the use of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, R02, for compliance with the requirements of AD 2013-14-04. Therefore, no changes to this AD are necessary regarding this issue.

    Request To Limit Requirements for Certain Approvals

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that we revise the statement in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD to remove the requirement to obtain FAA, EASA, or Airbus Design Organization Approval (DOA) approval for any instance where Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, R02, specifies contacting Airbus. Delta requested that we instead require these approvals only for damage that exceeds the allowable limits in the airplane maintenance manual (AMM); component maintenance manual (CMM); or cleaning, instruction and repair (CIR) manual. Delta stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, R02, specifies contacting Airbus any time a bolt is found out of tolerance regardless whether any damage is found. As such, this would effectively require FAA, EASA, or Airbus DOA approval any time a bolt is found with a torque out of limits, even if there is no damage to the forward mount assembly, or if the damage is within the AMM, CMM, or CIR allowable limits. Delta agreed with the required approvals, but only when there is damage that exceeds those limits. Delta stated that this change would limit the number of AMOC requests, and reduce airplane out-of-service times while maintaining the acceptable level of safety.

    We disagree with the commenter's request to change the corrective action requirement in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. The requirements of this AD correspond with those specified in the MCAI. The MCAI refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, R02, which specifies that when any bolt is found with a torque out of limits, corrective actions must be done. We have determined that these actions are necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. However, under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative corrective actions if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the alternative actions would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

    Request To Allow Replacement Instead of Repair

    Delta stated that paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD, which applies to the airplane (not the engine mount), would require repair before further flight. Delta interpreted this to mean the proposed AD would require repair of the forward engine mount before the airplane could return to flight. Delta requested that we revise the proposed AD to include a statement that explicitly allows replacement of damaged engine mounts, allowing the airplane to return to service as quickly as possible.

    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that replacement of an affected forward engine mount might be allowed as a corrective action and that a different compliance time may be acceptable. We have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD by replacing the proposed requirement to repair before further flight with the requirement to contact the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA before further flight to obtain applicable corrective action instructions approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA, and to do applicable corrective actions within the compliance time specified in those instructions.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

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

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

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated August 31, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive torque checks for loose or broken forward engine mount bolts on both engines, replacement of all four forward engine mount bolts and associated nuts, and inspection of the forward mount assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $6,747 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $287,082, or $7,002 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $6,747, for a cost of $6,832 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-18 Airbus: Amendment 39-18892; Docket No. FAA-2016-8849; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-174-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2006-16-05, Amendment 39-14705 (71 FR 44185, August 4, 2006) (“AD 2006-16-05”); and AD 2013-14-04, Amendment 39-17509 (78 FR 68352, November 14, 2013) (“AD 2013-14-04”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-223F, -223, -321, -322, and -323 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by fatigue load analysis that determined the need for certain reduced inspection intervals and updated torque values of the forward engine mount pylon bolts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loose or broken bolts, which could lead to engine detachment in flight and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Torque Check, Replacement, and Terminating Action for AD 2013-14-04

    (1) At the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, do a torque check to determine if there are any loose or broken forward engine mount bolts (4 positions/engine) on both engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated August 31, 2015. Repeat the torque check at the applicable time intervals not to exceed the values specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. For the purposes of this AD, the average flight time (AFT) is defined as a computation of the number of flight hours divided by the number of flight cycles accumulated since the most recent torque check or since the airplane's first flight, as applicable. Accomplishment of the initial torque check required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of AD 2013-14-04.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(1) of This AD Airplane models Flight cycles accumulated as of December 19, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-14-04), since last torque check specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-32 or since airplane's first flight, as applicable Compliance time Torque check interval
  • (not to exceed)
  • Model A330-321, -322, and -323 airplanes with AFT more than 132 minutes; and Model A330-223 airplanes 0-1,850 Within 2,350 flight cycles since the last torque check as specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-32, or since airplane's first flight, as applicable 2,350 flight cycles or 24,320 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Model A330-321, -322, and -323 airplanes with AFT more than 132 minutes; and Model A330-223 airplanes 1,851-2,700 Within 500 flight cycles after December 19, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-14-04), without exceeding 2,700 flight cycles since last torque check as specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-32, or since airplane's first flight, as applicable; or within 3 months after December 19, 2013; whichever occurs later 2,350 flight cycles or 24,320 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Model A330-321, -322, and -323 airplanes with AFT 132 minutes or less; and Model A330-321, -322, and -323 airplanes on which the AFT is not calculated on a regular basis 0-1,450 Within 1,950 flight cycles since the last torque check performed as specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-32, or since airplane's first flight, as applicable 1,950 flight cycles or 20,210 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Model A330-321, -322, and -323 airplanes with AFT 132 minutes or less; and Model A330-321, -322, and -323 airplanes on which the AFT is not calculated on a regular basis 1,451-2,700 Within 500 flight cycles after December 19, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-14-04), without exceeding 2,700 flight cycles since last torque check performed as specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4-100-A71-32, or since airplane's first flight, as applicable; or within 3 months after December 19, 2013; whichever occurs later 1,950 flight cycles or 20,210 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Model A330-223F airplanes Any Within 2,140 flight cycles or 6,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the last torque check performed as specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-32, or since airplane's first flight, as applicable 2,140 flight cycles or 6,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (2) If any loose or broken bolt is detected during the check required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions specified by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated August 31, 2015; except, where the service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for further corrective actions, before further flight contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); to obtain applicable corrective action instructions approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA; and accomplish the applicable corrective actions within the compliance time specified in those instructions.

    (i) Replace all four forward engine mount bolts and associated nuts, on the engine where the loose or broken bolt was detected, with new bolts and nuts.

    (ii) Do nondestructive inspections of the forward mount assembly for damage including cracks, dents, nicks, and scratches, and do all applicable corrective actions.

    (3) Replacement of bolts and nuts as required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD is not terminating action for the repetitive torque checks required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    (h) Terminating Action for Paragraph (g) of AD 2006-16-05

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2006-16-05.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of December 19, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-14-04), no person may install, on any airplane, any forward mount pylon bolt made of INCO718 material and having Pratt & Whitney part number 54T670.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, dated December 16, 2011, or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 01, dated February 20, 2012.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0214, dated October 19, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8849.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated August 31, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10282 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9431; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-104-AD; Amendment 39-18897; AD 2017-10-23] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that cracks could develop on holes at certain fuselage frame locations. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking on holes at certain fuselage frame locations, and repairs if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9431.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9431; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2016 (81 FR 86975). The NPRM was prompted by a determination from fatigue testing on the Model A321 airframe that cracks could develop on holes at certain fuselage frame locations. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking on holes at certain fuselage frame locations, and repairs if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain hole locations in the fuselage frame, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0106, dated June 6, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following a new full scale fatigue test campaign on the A321 airframe, in the context of the A321 extended service goal, it was identified that cracks could develop on holes at frame (FR) 35.2A between stringers (STR) 22 and STR 23 on right hand (RH) and left hand (LH) sides, also on aeroplanes operated in the context of design service goal.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed an inspection programme, published in Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1315 and SB A320-53-1316, each containing instructions for a different location.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive special detailed (rototest) inspections (SDI) of the affected holes [for cracking] and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.

    This [EASA] AD is considered an interim action, pending development of a permanent solution.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9431.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

    Request To Use Later Approved Service Information Revisions

    Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise the NPRM to permit use of later approved revisions of service information as we have done in previous alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). DAL stated that Airbus service bulletins are EASA approved, and through the bi-lateral agreement with the European Union, these subsequent service bulletin revisions should be allowed to be used by U.S. operators without seeking an AMOC. DAL also explained that having the ability to utilize future service bulletin revisions without seeking an AMOC is more efficient and preserves the required level of safety.

    We do not agree with DAL's request. While we acknowledge that we allow the use of later approved revisions of service information in AMOCs, we may not allow use of “later FAA-approved revisions” in an AD when referring to the service document. Doing so violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials “incorporated by reference,” as specified in 1 CFR 51.1(f).

    In general terms, we are required by the OFR regulations to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document only if the OFR approved it for “incorporation by reference.” See 1 CFR part 51.

    To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1315, dated January 13, 2016; and Service Bulletin A320-53-1316, dated January 13, 2016. This service information describes procedures for doing a special detailed inspection for cracking at the tooling holes on frame 35.2A between stringer 22 and stringer 23, and repairs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different sides of the airplane. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 175 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 per inspection cycle $0 $1,020 per inspection cycle $178,500 per inspection cycle

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-23 Airbus: Amendment 39-18897; Docket No. FAA-2016-9431; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-104-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination from fatigue testing on the Model A321 airframe that cracks could develop on holes at certain fuselage frame locations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain hole locations in the fuselage frame, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do a special detailed (rototest) inspection for cracking of the affected holes at frame 35.2A on the left-hand side and right-hand side between stringer 22 and stringer 23, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1315, dated January 13, 2016 (right-hand side); and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1316, dated January 13, 2016 (left-hand side). Repeat the inspection of the affected holes thereafter at intervals not to exceed 21,500 flight cycles or 43,100 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (1) Before exceeding 25,400 total flight cycles or 50,900 total flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.

    (2) Within 3,300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (h) Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Although the service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph. Repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, unless specified otherwise in the instructions provided by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0106, dated June 6, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9431.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1315, dated January 13, 2016.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1316, dated January 13, 2016.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10264 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0048; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-035-AD; Amendment 39-18876; AD 2017-10-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-11-01 for Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and T67M260-T3A airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of a brake master cylinder pivot pin, which could cause the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the brake cylinder. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0048; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, The Airport, Newmarket Road, Cambridge, CB5 8RX, UK; telephone: +44 (0) 1223 399856; fax: +44 (0) 7825365617; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.marshalladg.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2017-0048.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and T67M260-T3A airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9537), and proposed to supersede AD 2015-11-01, Amendment 39-18164 (80 FR 30136, May 27, 2015) (“AD 2015-11-01”).

    Since we issued AD 2015-11-01, new service information was issued to revise the inspection instructions and to add a new initial inspection period after replacement of the brake master cylinder pivot pins.

    The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:

    An occurrence was reported where pivot pin Part Number (P/N) T67M-45-539, of rudder pedal assembly #4, installed on the right hand (RH) side of the aeroplane (RH seat, RH pedal) failed during taxi. This caused the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the brake master cylinder.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could cause the rudder linkages to rotate out of their normal orientation, possibly resulting in jammed rudder controls and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Slingsby Advanced Composites Ltd, trading as Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group (hereafter called “Marshall” in this [EASA] AD) issued Service Bulletin (SB) SBM 200 to provide inspection instructions.

    Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2015-0065-E to require repetitive inspections of the brake cylinder pivot pins of rudder pedal assemblies #1 and #4 and, depending on findings, replacement of the affected pivot pin(s).

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Marshall published SBM 200 Revision 2 to revise the inspection instructions and to introduce a new initial inspection period after replacement of brake master cylinder pivot pins on an aeroplane.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-065-E, which is superseded, but requires the use of the revised inspection instructions. This [EASA] AD also allows deferring the next due inspection after replacement of the pins.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0048-0002.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information

    Slingsby Aviation Ltd. trading as Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group has issued Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 2, dated December 2015. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspection of the brake master cylinder pivot pin. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 3 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $50 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $1,680, or $560 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about .5 work-hour and require parts costing $100, for a cost of $142.50 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0048; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-18164 (80 FR 30136; May 27, 2015) and adding the following new AD: 2017-10-02 Slingsby Aviation Ltd.: Amendment 39-18876; Docket No. FAA-2017-0048; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-035-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2015-11-01, Amendment 39-18164 (80 FR 30136, May 27, 2015) (“AD 2015-11-01”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and T67M260-T3A airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of a brake master cylinder pivot pin, which could cause the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the brake cylinder. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the brake master cylinder pivot pin, which could lead to detachment of the rudder pedal mechanism from the brake master cylinder with consequent loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD:

    (1) Within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) after June 29, 2017 (the effective date of this AD) or within 300 hours TIS after the last inspection required by AD 2015-11-01, whichever occurs first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the brake master cylinder pivot pins part number (P/N) T67M-45-539 installed on rudder pedal assemblies number 1 and number 4. Do this action following paragraph C. INSPECTION of the Accomplishment Instructions in Marshall Aerospace and Defense Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 2, dated December 2015 (“SBM 200, Revision 2”).

    (2) If any cracking or distortion of the brake master cylinder pivot pins is found or the pivot pin fails the dimensional check during any of the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected pivot pin with a serviceable part following paragraph C. INSPECTION of the Accomplishment Instructions in SBM 200, Revision 2.

    (3) Replacement of the brake master cylinder pivot pins as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If both brake master cylinder pivot pins are replaced at the same time, the first repetitive inspection after replacement of the pivot pins can be deferred until 1,000 hours TIS after replacement of the pivot pins.

    (g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

    This AD provides credit for any inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD if completed before June 29, 2017 (the effective date of this AD) following the Accomplishment Instructions of Marshall Aerospace and Defense Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 1, dated April 2015.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2016-0214, dated October 27, 2016, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0048-0002.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Marshall Aerospace and Defense Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 2, dated December 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, The Airport, Newmarket Road, Cambridge, CB5 8RX, UK; telephone: +44 (0) 1223 399856; fax: +44 (0) 7825365617; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.marshalladg.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0048.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 3, 2017. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10403 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 95 [Docket No. 31138; Amdt. No. 533] IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

    The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 19, 2017. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017.

    1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

    2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows: Revisions to IFR Altitudes & Changeover Point Amendment 533 Effective Date June 22, 2017 FROM TO MEA MAA § 95.3000 Low Altitude RNAV Routes § 95.3257 RNAV Route T257 Is Amended by Adding VENTURA, CA VOR/DME SAN MARCUS, CA VORTAC 6300 17500 SAN MARCUS, CA VORTAC MORRO BAY, CA VORTAC 7300 17500 MORRO BAY, CA VORTAC CALIS, CA FIX 4100 17500 CALIS, CA FIX BLANC, CA FIX 3400 17500 BLANC, CA FIX HNNTR, CA WP 6600 17500 HNNTR, CA WP DUBSS, CA WP 7000 17500 DUBSS, CA WP CAATE, CA WP 6900 17500 CAATE, CA WP CHAWZ, CA WP 3900 17500 CHAWZ, CA WP PORTE, CA FIX 4200 17500 PORTE, CA FIX THHEO, CA WP 4200 17500 THHEO, CA WP JAMIN, CA WP 4300 17500 JAMIN, CA WP POINT REYES, CA VOR/DME 4300 17500 POINT REYES, CA VOR/DME FREES, CA FIX 3500 17500 FREES, CA FIX NACKI, CA WP 4900 17500 NACKI, CA WP MENDOCINO, CA VORTAC 5600 17500 MENDOCINO, CA VORTAC MERRI, CA FIX 5600 17500 MERRI, CA FIX FLUEN, CA FIX 5700 17500 FLUEN, CA FIX PLYAT, CA FIX 6800 17500 PLYAT, CA FIX CCHUK, CA WP 6700 17500 CCHUK, CA WP CICRO, CA WP 4800 17500 CICRO, CA WP SEGVE, CA FIX 3800 17500 SEGVE, CA FIX SCUPY, CA WP 2400 17500 SCUPY, CA WP OLJEK, CA FIX 2200 17500 OLJEK, CA FIX CIGGA, CA WP 1700 17500 CIGGA, CA WP FURNS, CA WP 2200 17500 FURNS, CA WP MITUE, OR FIX 4700 17500 MITUE, OR FIX JANAS, OR FIX 4600 17500 JANAS, OR FIX NEWPORT, OR VORTAC 4300 17500 NEWPORT, OR VORTAC CUTEL, OR FIX 4100 17500 CUTEL, OR FIX EYCEH, OR WP 4100 17500 EYCEH, OR WP ILWAC, WA FIX 2300 17500 ILWAC, WA FIX ZEDAT, WA FIX 2300 17500 ZEDAT, WA FIX WAVLU, WA FIX 2900 17500 WAVLU, WA FIX HOQUIAM, WA VORTAC 2900 17500 HOQUIAM, WA VORTAC COPLS, WA WP 2600 17500 COPLS, WA WP WAPTO, WA FIX 2900 17500 WAPTO, WA FIX OZETT, WA WP 3700 17500 OZETT, WA WP TATOOSH, WA VORTAC 4300 17500 Is Amended To Delete BIG SUR, CA VORTAC ISIFU, CA FIX 7300 17500 ISIFU, CA FIX SUTRO, CA FIX 4900 17500 SUTRO, CA FIX POINT REYES, CA VOR/DME 4000 17500 § 95.3259 RNAV Route T259 Is Amended by Adding LAKE HUGHES, CA VORTAC SHAFTER, CA VORTAC 8800 17500 SHAFTER, CA VORTAC AVENAL, CA VOR/DME 4300 17500 AVENAL, CA VOR/DME MBARI, CA WP 6600 17500 MBARI, CA WP LKHRN, CA WP 6200 17500 LKHRN, CA WP SALINAS, CA VORTAC 6000 17500 SALINAS, CA VORTAC CAATE, CA WP 4000 17500 CAATE, CA WP SANTY, CA FIX *4000 17500 *3300—MOCA SANTY, CA FIX SAPID, CA FIX 5200 17500 SAPID, CA FIX CRTER, CA WP 5500 17500 CRTER, CA WP NORCL, CA WP 6000 17500 NORCL, CA WP *MOVDD, CA WP 6000 17500 *5000—MCA MOVDD, CA WP, SW BND MOVDD, CA WP OOWEN, CA WP 3500 17500 OOWEN, CA WP OXJEF, CA WP 2300 17500 OXJEF, CA WP *SAAGO, CA WP 7000 17500 *9600—MCA SAAGO, CA WP, E BND SAAGO, CA WP *BNAKI, CA WP 11500 17500 *13200—MCA BNAKI, CA WP, E BND BNAKI, CA WP WEXIM, CA WP 14700 17500 WEXIM, CA WP NIKOL, CA FIX 14600 17500 NIKOL, CA FIX DAYMN, NV WP 13100 17500 DAYMN, NV WP ELY, NV VOR/DME 12100 17500 Is Amended To Delete SAN JOSE, CA VOR/DME CEDES, CA FIX 6200 17500 CEDES, CA FIX MOVDD, CA WP 5900 17500 *5000—MCA MOVDD, CA WP, SW BND MOVDD, CA WP SACRAMENTO, CA VORTAC 3200 17500 § 95.3261 RNAV Route T261 Is Amended by Adding SANTA CATALINA, CA VORTAC GAVIOTA, CA VORTAC 6900 17500 GAVIOTA, CA VORTAC MORRO BAY, CA VORTAC *6200 17500 *5700—MOCA MORRO BAY, CA VORTAC CLMNS, CA FIX 4100 17500 CLMNS, CA FIX HRRNG, CA WP 2300 17500 HRRNG, CA WP HMPBK, CA WP 2300 17500 *4300—MCA HMPBK, CA WP, N BND HMPBK, CA WP WOZZZ, CA WP 5400 17500 *6600—MCA WOZZZ, CA WP, N BND WOZZZ, CA WP DUBSS, CA WP 6900 17500 SALINAS, CA VORTAC KARNN, CA FIX 5500 17500 KARNN, CA FIX WINDY, CA FIX 4700 17500 WINDY, CA FIX SMONE, CA WP 5700 17500 SMONE, CA WP MOVDD, CA WP 5700 17500 *4700—MCA MOVDD, CA WP, SE BND MOVDD, CA WP RBLEW, CA WP 3600 17500 RBLEW, CA WP GIFME, CA WP 2500 17500 GIFME, CA WP HNNRY, CA WP 2500 17500 HNNRY, CA WP GRIDD, CA FIX 3400 17500 *2600—MCA GRIDD, CA FIX, S BND GRIDD, CA FIX TALUM, CA FIX 1800 17500 TALUM, CA FIX JINGO, CA FIX 1900 17500 JINGO, CA FIX GONGS, CA FIX 1800 17500 GONGS, CA FIX HOMAN, CA FIX 4800 17500 HOMAN, CA FIX GARSA, CA FIX 5500 17500 GARSA, CA FIX CCAPS, CA WP 9000 17500 CCAPS, CA WP MUREX, CA FIX 9500 17500 MUREX, CA FIX MIXUP, OR FIX 8600 17500 MIXUP, OR FIX PIIKZ, OR WP 8600 17500 PIIKZ, OR WP TUPSE, OR WP 9400 17500 TUPSE, OR WP DESCHUTES, OR VORTAC 6800 17500 DESCHUTES, OR VORTAC HERBS, OR FIX 6300 17500 HERBS, OR FIX CUPRI, OR FIX 6100 17500 CUPRI, OR FIX SUPOC, OR WP 5500 17500 SUPOC, OR WP KUKTE, OR FIX 6000 17500 KUKTE, OR FIX VECCU, WA FIX 5500 17500 VECCU, WA FIX SUNSN, WA WP 7000 17500 SUNSN, WA WP MUDLE, WA FIX 7100 17500 MUDLE, WA FIX YAKIMA, WA VORTAC 5300 17500 YAKIMA, WA VORTAC SELAH, WA FIX 5400 17500 SELAH, WA FIX GEBTE, WA FIX 6000 17500 GEBTE, WA FIX LARDY, WA WP 6000 17500 LARDY, WA WP QUINT, WA FIX 6400 17500 QUINT, WA FIX KLSEY, WA WP 5200 17500 KLSEY, WA WP PAWYO, WA WP 5100 17500 PAWYO, WA WP HVARD, WA WP 5400 17500 HVARD, WA WP SOFFE, WA WP 6500 17500 SOFFE, WA WP JSTEN, WA WP 6900 17500 Is Amended To Delete WOODSIDE, CA VOR/DME ALTAM, CA FIX 5000 17500 § 95.3263 RNAV Route T263 Is Amended by Adding FILLMORE, CA VORTAC DERBB, CA FIX 11000 17500 DERBB, CA FIX AVENAL, CA VOR/DME 6600 17500 AVENAL, CA VOR/DME PANOCHE, CA VORTAC 7100 17500 PANOCHE, CA VORTAC WINDY, CA FIX 6400 17500 WINDY, CA FIX SMONE, CA WP 5700 17500 SMONE, CA WP MOVDD, CA WP 5700 17500 MOVDD, CA WP RBLEW, CA WP 3600 17500 RBLEW, CA WP PITTS, CA FIX 3400 17500 PITTS, CA FIX SCAGGS ISLAND, CA VORTAC 3400 17500 SCAGGS ISLAND, CA VORTAC POPES, CA FIX 4800 17500 POPES, CA FIX NAKPT, CA WP 5400 17500 NAKPT, CA WP DIBLE, CA FIX 4800 17500 DIBLE, CA FIX KENDL, CA FIX 4900 17500 KENDL, CA FIX FOLDS, CA FIX 6900 17500 FOLDS, CA FIX HOMEG, CA WP 10400 17500 HOMEG, CA WP ZUNAS, CA FIX 9900 17500 ZUNAS, CA FIX TALEM, OR FIX 9500 17500 TALEM, OR FIX OREGN, OR WP 7800 17500 OREGN, OR WP EROWY, OR WP 6000 17500 EROWY, OR WP NOTTI, OR FIX 5400 17500 NOTTI, OR FIX CORVALLIS, OR VOR/DME 4200 17500 CORVALLIS, OR VOR/DME ARTTY, OR FIX 4000 17500 ARTTY, OR FIX NEWBERG, OR VOR/DME 3900 17500 NEWBERG, OR VOR/DME LOATH, OR FIX 4400 17500 LOATH, OR FIX WINLO, WA FIX 5200 17500 WINLO, WA FIX ULESS, WA FIX 5400 17500 ULESS, WA FIX MTLOK, WA WP 5800 17500 MTLOK, WA WP QUIIN, WA WP 7200 17500 QUIIN, WA WP ARRIE, WA FIX 9100 17500 ARRIE, WA FIX ELWHA, WA WP 8900 17500 Is Amended To Delete SUNOL, CA FIX SCAGGS ISLAND, CA VORTAC 4600 17500 § 95.3298 RNAV Route T298 Is Added To Read OAKLAND, CA VOR/DME SALAD, CA FIX 4300 17500 *4800—MCA SALAD, CA FIX, E BND SALAD, CA FIX ALTAM, CA FIX 5000 17500 *4600—MCA ALTAM, CA FIX, W BND ALTAM, CA FIX RBLEW, CA WP 4400 17500 *2700—MCA RBLEW, CA WP, W BND RBLEW, CA WP ORANG, CA FIX 1800 17500 ORANG, CA FIX EVETT, CA WP 1800 17500 *2500—MCA EVETT, CA WP, E BND EVETT, CA WP ELKHN, CA WP 6300 17500 *7500—MCA ELKHN, CA WP, E BND ELKHN, CA WP SMURA, CA WP 9600 17500 *11700—MCA SMURA, CA WP, E BND SMURA, CA WP NIKOL, CA FIX 14600 17500 *12200—MCA NIKOL, CA FIX, W BND NIKOL, CA FIX COALDALE, NV VORTAC 11700 17500 COALDALE, NV VORTAC KATTS, NV WP 11400 17500 KATTS, NV WP KITTN, NV WP 13300 17500 KITTN, NV WP WILSON CREEK, NV VORTAC 11600 17500 WILSON CREEK, NV VORTAC WOOOP, UT WP 11900 17500 WOOOP, UT WP MILFORD, UT VORTAC 11600 17500 MILFORD, UT VORTAC DETAN, UT FIX 11900 17500 *12700—MCA DETAN, UT FIX, NE BND DETAN, UT FIX EBOVE, UT WP 13400 17500 EBOVE, UT WP CARBON, UT VOR/DME 13200 17500 CARBON, UT VOR/DME MYTON, UT VOR/DME 11700 17500 MYTON, UT VOR/DME ROCK SPRINGS, WY VOR/DME 13700 17500 ROCK SPRINGS, WY VOR/DME DORTN, WY WP 10500 17500 DORTN, WY WP CRAZY WOMAN, WY VOR/DME 9300 17500 § 95.3329 RNAV Route T329 Is Added To Read MORRO BAY, CA VORTAC PASO ROBLES, CA VORTAC 5000 17500 PASO ROBLES, CA VORTAC LKHRN, CA WP 5900 17500 LKHRN, CA WP PANOCHE, CA VORTAC 6900 17500 PANOCHE, CA VORTAC MKNNA, CA WP 6400 17500 MKNNA, CA WP OXJEF, CA WP *6400 17500 *1600—MOCA OXJEF, CA WP TIPRE, CA WP 2700 17500 TIPRE, CA WP OLIPH, CA WP 2700 17500 OLIPH, CA WP HNNRY, CA WP 2400 17500 HNNRY, CA WP ROWWN, CA WP 1800 17500 *3200—MCA ROWWN, CA WP, W BND ROWWN, CA WP RAGGS, CA FIX 5100 17500 RAGGS, CA FIX POPES, CA FIX 4900 17500 POPES, CA FIX NACKI, CA WP 5900 17500 § 95.3331 RNAV Route T331 Is Added To Read NTELL, CA WP MKNNA, CA WP 2300 17500 MKNNA, CA WP KARNN, CA FIX 4700 17500 KARNN, CA FIX VINCO, CA FIX 6600 17500 VINCO, CA FIX NORCL, CA WP 6300 17500 NORCL, CA WP MOVDD, CA WP 6000 17500 MOVDD, CA WP EVETT, CA WP 3500 17500 EVETT, CA WP TIPRE, CA WP 2700 TIPRE, CA WP ESSOH, CA WP 6300 17500 *7800—MCA ESSOH, CA WP, NE BND ESSOH, CA WP SQUAW VALLEY, CA VOR/DME 11200 17500 SQUAW VALLEY, CA VOR/DME TRUCK, CA FIX 11200 17500 TRUCK, CA FIX MUSTANG, NV VORTAC 11600 17500 MUSTANG, NV VORTAC HIXUP, NV WP 10300 17500 HIXUP, NV WP LOVELOCK, NV VORTAC 9300 17500 LOVELOCK, NV VORTAC CUTVA, NV FIX 10500 17500 *11900—MCA CUTVA, NV FIX, E BND CUTVA, NV FIX BATTLE MOUNTAIN, NV VORTAC 11900 17500 BATTLE MOUNTAIN, NV VORTAC PARZZ, NV WP 10900 17500 PARZZ, NV WP DRYAD, ID FIX 10700 17500 DRYAD, ID FIX TULIE, ID WP 11400 17500 TULIE, ID WP AMFAL, ID WP 8300 17500 AMFAL, ID WP POCATELLO, ID VOR/DME 8300 17500 POCATELLO, ID VOR/DME VIPUC, ID WP 7700 17500 VIPUC, ID WP IDAHO FALLS, ID VOR/DME 7100 17500 IDAHO FALLS, ID VOR/DME PULTE, ID FIX 7100 17500 PULTE, ID FIX SABAT, ID FIX 7600 17500 SABAT, ID FIX WAHNZ, ID WP 9900 17500 WAHNZ, ID WP BUFVO, WY WP 11700 17500 BUFVO, WY WP SPECT, MT WP 14900 17500 SPECT, MT WP BILLINGS, MT VORTAC 8300 17500 BILLINGS, MT VORTAC TRUED, MT WP 6100 17500 TRUED, MT WP EXADE, MT FIX 5900 17500 EXADE, MT FIX JEKOK, ND WP 4400 17500 JEKOK, ND WP FONIA, ND FIX 4000 17500 § 95.3333 RNAV Route T333 Is Added To Read KLIDE, CA FIX BORED, CA FIX 6200 17500 BORED, CA FIX SMONE, CA WP 6100 17500 SMONE, CA WP OOWEN, CA WP 5700 17500 *4200—MCA OOWEN, CA WP, S BND OOWEN, CA WP EVETT, CA WP 2300 17500 EVETT, CA WP TIPRE, CA WP 2700 17500 FROM TO MEA § 95.6001 VICTOR ROUTES—U.S. § 95.6087 VOR Federal Airway V87 Is Amended To Delete SCAGGS ISLAND, CA VORTAC MAXWELL, CA VORTAC 5300 MAXWELL, CA VORTAC RED BLUFF, CA VORTAC 3000 § 95.6088 VOR Federal Airway V88 Is Amended To Read in Part NARCI, OK FIX *WACCO, MO FIX **6200 *6200—MCA WACCO, MO FIX, SW BND **3100—MOCA **4000—GNSS MEA WACCO, MO FIX *QUALM, MO FIX **3700 *3700—MCA QUALM, MO FIX, W BND **2500—MOCA QUALM, MO FIX SPRINGFIELD, MO VORTAC 3000 § 95.6109 VOR Federal Airway V109 Is Amended To Delete PANOCHE, CA VORTAC VOLTA, CA FIX 5000 VOLTA, CA FIX MANTECA, CA VOR/DME *3000 *3000—GNSS MEA MANTECA, CA VOR/DME BYRON, CA FIX 2000 BYRON, CA FIX ALTAM, CA FIX W BND 4500 E BND 3500 ALTAM, CA FIX *SALAD, CA FIX 5000 *4700—MCA SALAD, CA FIX, NE BND SALAD, CA FIX *OAKLAND, CA VOR/DME 4000 *4700—MCA OAKLAND, CA VOR/DME, NE BND § 95.6113 VOR Federal Airway V113 Is Amended To Delete PANOCHE, CA VORTAC VOLTA, CA FIX 5000 VOLTA, CA FIX MANTECA, CA VOR/DME #*3000 *3000—GNSS MEA #MANTECA R-147 UNUSABLE MANTECA, CA VOR/DME LINDEN, CA VOR/DME 2000 Is Amended To Read in Part PANOCHE, CA VORTAC PATYY, CA FIX 5000 PATYY, CA FIX MODESTO, CA VOR/DME *3000 *1500—MOCA MODESTO, CA VOR/DME LINDEN, CA VOR/DME 2000 § 95.6115 VOR Federal Airway V115 Is Amended To Read in Part JAMESTOWN, NY VOR/DME *LANGS, NY FIX 3900 *11000—MCA LANGS, NY FIX, NE BND § 95.6161 VOR Federal Airway V161 Is Amended To Read In Part TULSA, OK VORTAC NOVEL, OK FIX 3100 § 95.6190 VOR Federal Airway V190 Is Amended To Read In Part OSWEGO, KS VOR/DME *WACCO, MO FIX 3100 *3700—MCA WACCO, MO FIX, E BND WACCO, MO FIX *QUALM, MO FIX **3700 *3700—MCA QUALM, MO FIX, W BND **2500—MOCA QUALM, MO FIX SPRINGFIELD, MO VORTAC 3000 § 95.6195 VOR Federal Airway V195 Is Amended To Delete MANTECA, CA VOR/DME TRACY, CA FIX *4100 *2900—MOCA TRACY, CA FIX *SUNOL, CA FIX 5200 *4700—MCA SUNOL, CA FIX, NE BND SUNOL, CA FIX OAKLAND, CA VOR/DME 4000 § 95.6307 VOR Federal Airway V307 Is Amended To Read In Part OSWEGO, KS VOR/DME CHANUTE, KS VOR/DME *3000 *2500—MOCA § 95.6405 VOR Federal Airway V405 Is Amended To Read In Part SOLBERG, NJ VOR/DME CARMEL, NY VOR/DME *3000 *2500—MOCA § 95.6585 VOR Federal Airway V585 Is Amended To Delete CLOVIS, CA VORTAC *MENDO, CA FIX 2000 *3000—MCA MENDO, CA FIX, SW BND MENDO, CA FIX PANOCHE, CA VORTAC 4500 PANOCHE, CA VORTAC VOLTA, CA FIX 5000 VOLTA, CA FIX MANTECA, CA VOR/DME #*3000 *3000—GNSS MEA MANTECA R-147 UNUSABLE MANTECA, CA VOR/DME LODDI, CA FIX 2000 LODDI, CA FIX SACRAMENTO, CA VORTAC 3000 FROM TO MEA MAA § 95.7001 Jet Routes § 95.7058 Jet Route J58 Is Amended To Delete OAKLAND, CA VOR/DME MANTECA, CA VOR/DME 18000 45000 MANTECA, CA VOR/DME COALDALE, NV VORTAC 18000 45000 § 95.7080 Jet Route J80 Is Amended To Delete OAKLAND, CA VOR/DME MANTECA, CA VOR/DME 18000 45000 MANTECA, CA VOR/DME COALDALE, NV VORTAC 18000 45000 § 95.7094 Jet Route J94 Is Amended To Delete OAKLAND, CA VOR/DME MANTECA, CA VOR/DME 18000 45000 MANTECA, CA VOR/DME MUSTANG, NV VORTAC 19000 45000
    [FR Doc. 2017-10741 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0383] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Petaluma River, Haystack Landing, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Northwestern Pacific (Haystack Landing) railroad bridge across Petaluma River, mile 12.4 at Haystack Landing (Petaluma), CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform necessary bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on May 31, 2017 to 3 p.m. on June 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0383], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Northwestern Pacific (Haystack Landing) railroad bridge, mile 12.4, over Petaluma River, at Haystack Landing (Petaluma), CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 3 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.187(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on May 31, 2017 to 3 p.m. on June 1, 2017, to allow the bridge owner to perform necessary bridge maintenance and change the gear reducer fluid. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: May 18, 2017. C.T. Hausner, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10705 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0312] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis, MO AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Upper Mississippi River near St. Louis, MO. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons and property from potential damage and safety hazards during a fireworks display on and over the navigable waterway. During the period of enforcement, entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or other designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on May 28, 2017 through 10 p.m. on May 29, 2017. This rule will be enforced from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 28, 2017, unless the fireworks display is postponed because of adverse weather, in which case this rule will be enforced from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0312 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, Sector Upper Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LNM Local Notice to Mariners NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section UMR Upper Mississippi River U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive the application until February 23, 2017. After full review of the details for the planned and locally advertised displays, the Coast Guard determined action is needed to protect people and property from the safety hazards associated with the fireworks display on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) near St. Louis, MO. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by May 28, 2017. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of the rule is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the effectiveness of the temporary safety zone needed to respond to potential related safety hazards associated with the fireworks display.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display will be a safety concern before, during, and after the display. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. on May 28, 2017 through 10 p.m. on May 29, 2017. This rule will be enforced from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 28, 2017, unless the fireworks display is postponed because of adverse weather, in which case this rule will be enforced from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 29, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between miles 180 and 180.5 on the UMR in St. Louis, MO. Any changes to the planned schedule will be communicated to mariners using Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) and Local Notice to Mariners (LNM). The safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during and after the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. These rules have not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, they have not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This temporary final rule establishes a safety zone impacting a one-half mile area on the UMR for a limited time period of one hour and a half. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or other designated representative. Based on the location, limited safety zone area, and short duration of the enforcement period, this rule does not pose a significant regulatory impact. Additionally, notice of the safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will be made via BNM and LNM. Permission to enter this safety zone must be requested from the COTP or other designated representative.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting two hours that will prohibit entry from mile 180 to 180.5 on the UMR. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Record of Environmental Consideration are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T08-0689 to read as follows:
    § 165.08-0689 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River between miles 180 and 180.5; St. Louis, MO.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River between miles 180 to 180.5, St. Louis, MO.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 28, 2017, unless the fireworks display is postponed because of adverse weather, in which case this rule will be enforced from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 29, 2017.

    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: May 15, 2017. M.L. Malloy, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10701 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0274] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone—Bay Swim X AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    At various times throughout the month of June, the Coast Guard will enforce certain safety zones located in the Code of Federal Regulations. This notice of enforcement includes the Bay Swim X event. This action is necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. During each enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    DATES:

    The regulation in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(33) will be enforced on June 17, 2017 from 8:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd. Buffalo, NY 14203; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following event:

    (1) Bay Swim, Erie, PA; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(33) will be enforced from 8:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. on June 17, 2017.

    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

    Dated: May 15, 2017. J.S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10706 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0102 and EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0758; FRL-9962-01-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; NH; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Program Revisions; Public Hearing Revisions for State Permitting Programs; Withdrawal of Permit Fee Program; Infrastructure Provisions for National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule and correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving several different State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to EPA by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). New Hampshire submitted to EPA on October 26, 2016, revisions satisfying the NHDES's earlier commitment to adopt and submit provisions that meet certain requirements of the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) air permit program regulations. This action will convert to full approval EPA's September 25, 2015 conditional approval of New Hampshire's PSD and NNSR permit programs. This action also will approve NHDES's SIP revisions relating to several New Hampshire infrastructure SIPs, which were conditionally approved by EPA on December 16, 2015 and July 8, 2016.

    Additionally, EPA is also approving: A January 31, 2017 SIP revision amending the public notice and hearing procedures for New Hampshire's NNSR, PSD, and minor NSR permit programs; a January 18, 2017 SIP revision withdrawing the State SIP's permit fee system; and a November 17, 2015 SIP revision that addresses the good neighbor provisions of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 nitrogen oxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    Lastly, EPA issued a correcting amendment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2017. An error occurred in an amendatory instruction and the table entry for “Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS” could not be incorporated into the CFR. The EPA is correcting that error.

    DATES:

    The correcting amendment is effective May 25, 2017. This direct final rule is effective July 24, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 26, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0102 and EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0758 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ida E. McDonnell, Manager, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone number (617) 918-1653, fax number (617) 918-0653, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Table of Contents I. New Hampshire's October 26, 2106 SIP Submittal Addressing EPA's September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 Conditional Approvals Regarding Env-A 600 A. What is the background information for EPA's September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 conditional approvals? B. What is a conditional approval? C. What are the terms of the September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 conditional approvals? D. Were the terms of the September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 conditional approvals met? E. Other Revisions to Env-A 600. II. Approval of New Hampshire's January 31, 2017 SIP Submittal Revising the Notice and Hearing Procedures for the State's NNSR, PSD, and Minor NSR Permit Programs III. Approval of New Hampshire's January 18, 2017 SIP Submittal Withdrawing Env-A 700 Permit Fee System From SIP-Approved Regulations IV. Approval of New Hampshire's November 17, 2015 SIP Submittal Addressing the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP Requirements Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA A. What is the background information for New Hampshire's November 17, 2015 SIP submittal? B. What is required under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)? C. How did New Hampshire meet these requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS? V. Final Action. A. Full Approval of EPA's September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 Conditional Approvals B. Approval of New Hampshire's January 31, 2017 SIP Submittal Revising the Notice and Hearing Procedures for the State's NNSR and PSD Permit Programs and Minor NSR Permit Program C. Approval of New Hampshire's January 18, 2017 SIP Submittal Withdrawing Env-A 700 Permit Fee System From SIP-Approved Regulations D. Approval of New Hampshire's November 17, 2015 SIP Submittal Addressing the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP Requirements Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA E. Rationale for Direct Final Rulemaking VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. New Hampshire's October 26, 2016 SIP Submittal Addressing EPA's September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 Conditional Approvals Regarding Env-A 600 A. What is the background information for EPA's September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015 and July 8, 2016 conditional approvals?

    On September 25, 2015, EPA published a final conditional approval for NHDES's November 15, 2012 SIP revision. See 80 FR 57722. That conditional approval identified three provisions required under Federal PSD and NNSR program regulations that were not included in the State's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal.

    On December 16, 2015 and July 8, 2016, EPA published final conditional approvals of several of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP revisions, i.e., those for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2008 lead NAAQS, the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. These conditional approvals identified one of the same provisions that was not included in the State's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal, i.e., notice of major source permits to affected states and Indian Governing bodies. See 80 FR 78135 and 81 FR 44542.

    B. What is a conditional approval?

    Under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain no later than one year from the effective date of final conditional approval. If the EPA subsequently determines that the State has met its commitment, EPA publishes a document in the Federal Register notifying the public that EPA is converting the conditional approval to a full approval.

    However, if the State fails to meet its commitment in a timely manner, then the conditional approval automatically converts to a disapproval by operation of law without further action required by EPA. If that were to occur, EPA would then notify the State by letter. At that time, the conditionally approved SIP revisions would not be part of the State's approved SIP. EPA subsequently would publish a document in the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval.

    C. What are the terms of the September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 conditional approvals?

    EPA's September 25, 2015 conditional approval required the NHDES to submit revised regulations that address three separate provisions of EPA's PSD and NNSR program regulations that were not included in the State's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal. To address the conditional approval, on October 26, 2016, the NHDES submitted regulatory provisions for approval into the State's SIP. The three provisions include the following:

    • 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i), which notifies any owner or operator that approval to construct shall not relieve them of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law;

    • 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (7), which require additional record keeping and other requirements applicable at major stationary sources for projects that are not major modifications based on the required actual-to-projected actual test, but which have a “reasonable possibility” of resulting in a significant emission increase; and

    • 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), which requires notice of a draft PSD permit to be sent to, among other entities, state air agencies and Indian Governing bodies whose lands may be affected by emissions from the permitted source. Only the references to “state air agencies” and “Indian Governing bodies” were missing from New Hampshire's regulatory provision.

    With respect to the issue noted previously relating to the State's obligation to provide notice to states and Indian governing bodies, EPA's December 16, 2015 conditional approval and July 8, 2016 conditional approval, applicable to the State's infrastructure SIPs (identified earlier in this action), both required the NHDES to address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D) and (J) as they relate to the NHDES's obligation to send notice of draft PSD permits to other state air agencies and Indian Governing bodies whose lands may be affected by emissions from the permitted source, as required under 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv). The NHDES regulatory provisions submitted to EPA on October 26, 2016 also properly addressed these infrastructure SIP conditional approvals.

    D. Were the terms of the September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 conditional approvals met?

    As noted previously, on October 26, 2016, the NHDES submitted to EPA the three provisions identified in the September 25, 2015 conditional approval. EPA reviewed the three provisions and found they met the terms of the September 25, 2015 conditional approval. Accordingly, EPA is converting the September 25, 2015 conditional approval to a full approval. Also, as noted previously, because the October 26, 2016 submittal included provisions that met the terms of the December 16, 2015 and July 8, 2016 infrastructure conditional approvals, EPA is also converting the December 16, 2015 and July 8, 2016 conditional approvals to full approvals.

    EPA provided an analysis of its approval of the three regulatory provisions in question in a technical support document (TSD), which is included in the docket and administrative record for this action.

    E. Other Revisions to Env-A 600

    NHDES's October 26, 2016 submittal also contained revisions to Env-A 618.01 and Env-A 619, for the purpose of updating to July 1, 2016 the incorporation by reference date used in the New Hampshire's regulations implementing 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 52.21. New Hampshire also requested in its October 26, 2016 SIP submittal that EPA remove from the New Hampshire SIP sections Env-A 619.03(c)(2) and (c)(3). By removing sections Env-A 619.03(c)(2) and (c)(3), New Hampshire's SIP-approved definitions of “allowable emissions” and “potential to emit” are now identical to EPA's definitions of those terms in 40 CFR 52.21 (as of July 1, 2016). The changes to these two definitions satisfies CAA section 110(l) because simply including the notion of federal enforceability into these definitions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of a NAAQS or reasonable further progress (as defined by the CAA) or any other applicable CAA requirement. Additionally, the State's October 26, 2016 submittal included a change to Env-A 619.07(d) so that the State regulations now correctly identify the proper citation for the public notice requirements relating to PSD permits.

    II. Approval of New Hampshire's January 31, 2017 SIP Submittal Revising the Notice and Hearing Procedures for the State's NNSR, PSD, and Minor NSR Permit Programs

    On January 31, 2017, New Hampshire submitted SIP revisions to Env-A 621, Permit Notice and Hearing Procedures: Temporary Permits and Permits to Operate. Env-A 621 establishes the public notice requirements for the State's NNSR, PSD and minor NSR permit programs, and replaces the current SIP-approved public notice requirements under Env-A 205, Public Notice and Hearing Procedures. The SIP revisions include provisions that render New Hampshire's PSD program's public notice requirements consistent with the Federal SIP-approved PSD program's public notice requirements under 40 CFR 51.166(q). The SIP revisions also render New Hampshire's NNSR permit program's public notice requirements consistent with the public notice requirements under 40 CFR 51.166(q), even though the applicable Federal rules only require SIP-approved NNSR permit programs to meet the less prescriptive air permit program public notice requirements under 40 CFR 51.161. Since the public notice requirements under 40 CFR 51.166(q) are more comprehensive than 40 CFR 51.161, New Hampshire's revisions to the public notice requirements of its NNSR permit programs are fully approvable. Finally, New Hampshire's revisions to the public notice requirements applicable to its minor NSR permit program are consistent with 40 CFR 51.161. The minor NSR permit program consists of those federal permit rules that apply to new or modified emission units with emission increases below the PSD and NNSR program applicability threshold levels. Since the provisions of Env-A 621 are replacing and thus supersede the current SIP-approved public notice requirements under Env-A 205, Public Notice and Hearing Procedures, NHDES requested that EPA remove Env-A 205 from the SIP.

    EPA has provided an analysis of these amendments in the TSD document which is included in the docket and administrative record for this action.

    III. Approval of New Hampshire's January 18, 2017 SIP Submittal Withdrawing Env-A 700 Permit Fee System From SIP-Approved Regulations

    On January 18, 2017, the NHDES submitted to EPA a SIP revision requesting the withdrawal of Env-A 700 Permit Fee system from the New Hampshire SIP. EPA is approving this revision on the grounds that it is consistent with the CAA Amendments of 1990 at section 110(a)(2)(L). That section of the CAA requires SIPs to contain permit fee programs which sufficiently cover the cost of SIP-approved major source permitting programs, i.e., NNSR and PSD. Section 110(a)(2)(L) further states that the SIP requirement for a permit fee system may be superseded if a state's fee program under subchapter V of the CAA Amendments (colloquially referred to as the title V operating permit program) is applicable to the same sources and is approved by the Administrator. New Hampshire's title V operating permit program received interim approval in 1996 and full approval in 2001. In EPA's proposed interim approval, we stated that “. . .New Hampshire has demonstrated that the state is collecting sufficient permit fees to meet EPA's [title V operating permitting program requirements].” See 61 FR 42225 (August 14, 1996). Furthermore, New Hampshire's title V operating permit program covers the same sources as the SIP-approved major source permitting programs.

    IV. Approval of New Hampshire's November 17, 2015 SIP Submittal Addressing the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP Requirements Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA A. What is the background information for New Hampshire's November 17, 2015 SIP submittal?

    On November 17, 2015, NHDES submitted to EPA as a SIP revision its “Amendment to New Hampshire [sic] 2008 Ozone 8-hour and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 1-hour NAAQS Infrastructure SIPs to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).” EPA approved this submittal with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS on October 13, 2016 (81 FR 70631). Our evaluation of the submittal with respect to the 2010 NO2 standard is discussed later in this preamble.

    B. What is required under section 110(a)(2)(D(i)(I)?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, known as the “good neighbor provision,” requires each state to include “adequate provisions” in its SIP prohibiting “any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any [national ambient air quality standard].” 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). New Hampshire was required to address these provisions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    C. How did New Hampshire meet these requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS?

    New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submission to address the good neighbor requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) notes that on January 20, 2012, EPA designated all areas of the country as “unclassifiable/attainment” for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA did this because design values (DVs) for the 2008-2010 period at all monitored sites met the NAAQS. Measurements from 2013-2015 indicate continued attainment of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS throughout the country. New Hampshire currently operates one NO2 monitor located in Londonderry. The DV is based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The 98th percentile in 2014 and 2015 were 25.3 and 22.7 parts per billion (ppb), respectively. (The State has insufficient data to determine the DV for the entire period from 2013 through 2015 due to the lack of data capture in 2013.) The values from 2014 and 2015, however, are significantly less than the national ambient air quality standard for NO2, which is 100 ppb. However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor within the State is insufficient by itself to demonstrate that New Hampshire has met its interstate transport obligation. While the DV may help to assist in characterizing air quality within New Hampshire, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses the effects that sources within New Hampshire have on air quality in neighboring states. Therefore, an evaluation and analysis of DV's in neighboring states is appropriate.

    Table I contains the highest NO2 design values for the three states neighboring New Hampshire, i.e., Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

    Table 1—Highest NO2 Design Values in PPB for AQS Monitors in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine State AQS monitor site Monitor location Design value
  • (2013-2015)
  • Maine 23-003-1100 Presque Isle 20 Massachusetts * 25-025-0002 Boston 51 Vermont 500210002 Rutland 37 * There were three monitoring sites with DV of 51 ppb in Massachusetts. Two were in Boston and one was in Worcester.

    As shown by the Table 1 chart in this preamble, the highest NO2 design value in each neighboring state is significantly less than the NO2 NAAQS. As a result, EPA finds that sources or emissions activity from within New Hampshire will not interfere with other states' ability to attain and maintain the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    The New Hampshire submittal notes that New Hampshire nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions have been declining, with total statewide NOX emissions dropping from 69,836 tons in 2002 to 37,292 tons in 2011. In 2014, statewide NOX emissions were 36,014 tons. Our review of NOX emissions data from New Hampshire sources, which New Hampshire has entered into the EPA National Emissions Inventory database, confirms this emission data. In light of the analysis, EPA is approving New Hampshire's infrastructure submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS as it pertains to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.

    V. Final Action A. Full Approval of EPA's September 25, 2015, December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016 Conditional Approvals

    EPA is approving the PSD and NNSR permitting program provisions included in NHDES's October 22, 2016 SIP submittal and is converting the September 25, 2015 conditional approval to a full approval. EPA is also converting the December 16, 2015 and July 8, 2016 conditional approvals relating to New Hampshire's infrastructure SIPs1 for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2, 1997 PM2.5, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to a full approval.

    1 Specifically, the State's SIP revision submission addressed the public notice requirements discussed earlier in this action.

    B. Approval of New Hampshire's January 31, 2017 SIP Submittal Revising the Notice and Hearing Procedures for the State's NNSR and PSD Permit Programs and Minor NSR Permit Program

    EPA is approving into the New Hampshire SIP Env-A 621, Permit Notice and Hearing Procedures: Temporary permits and Permits to Operate submitted on January 31, 2017. In addition, since the provisions under Env-A 621 supersede the current SIP-approved public hearing provisions under Env-A 205 Public Notice and Hearing Procedures, EPA is removing Env-A 205 in its entirety from the SIP. Because the requirements of Env-621 are no less stringent that the requirements of Env-A 205, this SIP revision also meets section 110(l) of the CAA.

    C. Approval of New Hampshire's January 18, 2017 SIP Submittal Withdrawing Env-A 700 Permit Fee System From SIP-Approved Regulations

    EPA is approving NHDES's January 18, 2017 submittal requesting withdrawal of Env-A 700 Permit Fee System from the New Hampshire SIP. EPA finds that the New Hampshire SIP revision is consistent with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA, as described earlier in this action. EPA is therefore removing Env-A 700 in its entirety from the SIP in light of the State's title V operating permit program fee requirements.

    D. Approval of New Hampshire's November 17, 2015 SIP Submittal Addressing the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP Requirements Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA

    EPA is approving NHDES's November 17, 2015 submittal that addresses the infrastructure SIP requirements under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The analysis provided in the submittal shows that: (1) NO2 concentrations in New Hampshire are significantly below the 2010 NO2 NAAQS; (2) NOX emissions within New Hampshire continue to decrease over time; and (3) sources of NOX emissions, or other types of emissions activity, in New Hampshire do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to the NO2 NAAQS.

    E. Rationale for Direct Final Rulemaking

    EPA is publishing these actions without prior proposal because the Agency views these as noncontroversial amendments and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective July 24, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by June 26, 2017.

    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on July 24, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of New Hampshire's Env-A 618, Env-A 619.03, Env-A 619.07, and Env-A 621 (except for Env-A 621.10) and the removal of Env-A 205 and Env-A 700 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 24, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 19, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England. Correction

    In final rule FR Doc. 2017-09028, published in the issue of Friday, May 5, 2017 (82 FR 21123), make the following correction:

    On page 21123, in the third column, remove amendatory instruction 2.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart EE—New Hampshire
    § 52.1519 [Amended]
    2. Section 52.1519 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(5) through (11). 3. Section 52.1520 is amended by: a. In the table in paragraph (c): i. Revising the entries for “Env-A 200” and “Env-A 600”; and ii. Removing the entry for “Env-A 700”; and b. In the table in paragraph (e): i. Revising the entries “Infrastructure SIP for 2008 ozone NAAQS”, “Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS”, “Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS”, “Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS”, and “Infrastructure SIP for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS”; ii. Adding the entry “Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS” after the entry “Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS”; and iii. Adding an entry for “Transport SIP for the 2010 NO2 Standard” at the end of the table.

    The revisions and additions reads as follows:

    § 52.1520 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations State citation Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date 1 Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Env-A 200 Permit Notice and Hearing Procedures 5/25/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Removal of Env-A 205 from SIP *         *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * Env-A 600 Statewide Permit System 10/22/16 5/25/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revisions to Env-A 618.01, 618.02(c), Env-A 618.04(b), Env-A 618.04(d), Env-A 619.03(c), 619.07 and Env-A 621(except for 621.10) *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

    (e) * * *

    New Hampshire NonRegulatory Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State
  • submittal
  • date/effective
  • date
  • EPA approved date  3 Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure SIP for 2008 ozone NAAQS Statewide 12/31/2012 5/25/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation] Items that were conditionally approved on 12/16/15 are now fully approved. Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS Statewide 11/7/2011 5/25/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation] Items that were conditionally approved on 12/16/15 are now fully approved. Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Statewide 1/28/2013 5/25/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation] Items that were conditionally approved on 12/16/15 are now fully approved. Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS Statewide 7/13/2013 5/25/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation] Items that were conditionally approved on 7/8/2016 are now fully approved. Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 7/3/2012 5/25/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation] Items that were conditionally approved on 12/16/15 are now fully approved. Infrastructure SIP for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 9/18/2009 5/25/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation] Items that were conditionally approved on 12/16/15 are now fully approved. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Transport SIP for the 2010 NO2 Standard Statewide 11/17/2015 5/25/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation] 3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09536 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0112; FRL-9961-54] Flazasulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of flazasulfuron in or on olives. ISK Biosciences Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 25, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 24, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0112, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0112 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 24, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0112, 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 CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F8447) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, Ohio 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, flazasulfuron (N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide), in or on olive at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flazasulfuron including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flazasulfuron follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    The risk assessment for flazasulfuron is based on a well-characterized and complete toxicology database. After oral administration to rats, more than 84% of the dose of flazasulfuron was excreted within 72 hours, mostly as parent compound. Urinary elimination accounted for about 80-90% of the dose and fecal elimination for about 10-20%. Females tended to eliminate more in the urine, and slightly more rapidly, than males. Tissue distribution was rapid but incomplete. While levels in tissue were generally low, the tissues with highest concentrations were the blood, liver, and muscle.

    The liver was the main target organ of flazasulfuron in most species tested, with effects ranging from non-adverse liver hypertrophy to more severe histopathological findings like inflammatory cell infiltration, hepatocellular necrosis and swelling, and bile duct proliferation. Rats also showed kidney toxicity (nephropathy) after chronic exposure. No adverse effects were observed in most short and intermediate duration (≤90 days) studies; only reduced body weight gain and non-adverse liver effects (increased weight and hepatocellular hypertrophy) were observed in some of the subchronic toxicity studies.

    Developmental toxicity was observed in rats and abortions in rabbits; however, findings in rats were not consistent across strains. A small increase in the incidence of intraventricular septal defect was observed in Wistar rats but not in Sprague-Dawley rats. Significant decreases in mean fetal body weight were observed in both rat strains at the limit dose. In these same studies in the rat, the maternal animals showed no adverse effects. A high incidence of abortion and decreased food consumption, but no specific fetal effects, were observed in rabbits. While the developmental studies indicate there is offspring susceptibility in rats, both rat studies provide clear no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) for the adverse fetal effects. Furthermore, the points of departure (PODs) used for risk assessment are lower than doses associated with fetal effects; therefore, the assessments are protective of the observed offspring effects.

    No increase in tumor incidence was seen in rats or mice. Flazasulfuron is not genotoxic. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the database. The acute toxicity data indicate that flazasulfuron has low acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity. It was not found to be a skin irritant, but was a moderate eye irritant. Flazasulfuron was not a dermal sensitizer. Flazasulfuron is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic in humans” based on the lack of carcinogenic effects in the rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies, and lack of a mutagenicity concern.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flazasulfuron as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document titled “Flazasulfuron. Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use on Olives” at page 23 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0112.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological POD and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flazasulfuron used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit II. B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of September 5, 2014 (79 FR 52985) (FRL-9915-32).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to flazasulfuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing flazasulfuron tolerances in 40 CFR 180.655. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flazasulfuron in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for flazasulfuron. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and the CDC under the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey/What We Eat in America (NHANES/WEIA) 2003-2008. The acute dietary exposure analyses incorporate tolerance-level residues of the currently registered and proposed crops combined with 100% crop treated (%CT) to determine the exposure and risk estimates. Residues of flazasulfuron were all <Level of Quantification (LOQ) (<0.01 ppm) in/on olive fruit and olive oil; therefore, processing factors could not be calculated. An acceptable method was used for residue quantitation, and adequate data were submitted to support sample storage intervals and conditions. In the crop field trials, all residues of parent flazasulfuron in olive were nondetectable. Since all residues were <LOQ, residue decline could not be assessed. Acceptable metabolism studies on grapes, sugarcane, and tomatoes are available. Residues of flazasulfuron were not detected in the tomato study and were only detected as a trace or minor component in the grape and sugarcane studies. Therefore, the processing factors were set at 1 in the dietary exposure assessment.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WEIA 2003-2008. The chronic dietary exposure analyses incorporate tolerance-level residues of the currently registered and proposed crops combined with 100%CT to determine the exposure and risk estimates. Processing factors were set at 1 in the dietary exposure assessment.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that flazasulfuron does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for flazasulfuron. Tolerance level residues and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for flazasulfuron in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of flazasulfuron. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) for ground water and the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) for surface water, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of flazasulfuron for acute exposures are estimated to be 26.9 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 90.8 ppb for ground water.

    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments EDWCs are estimated to be 4.67 ppb for surface water and 55.6 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 90.8 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 55.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Flazasulfuron is currently registered for use on turf that could result in residential exposures. Residential exposure may occur by the dermal, oral, and inhalation routes of exposures. Flazasulfuron does not pose a dermal hazard; therefore, only inhalation (handler exposure for adults) and oral (post-application incidental oral for children) were assessed. Non-occupational exposures to flazasulfuron are expected to be for short-term durations only. The recommended residential exposure for use in the adult aggregate assessment reflects inhalation exposure from applications to turf via backpack or manually pressurized handwand. The recommended residential exposure for use in the children 1 to <2 years old aggregate assessment reflects hand-to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to turf treatments. A turf transferable residues (TTR) study is not required for flazasulfuron at this time since there was no dermal hazard identified and the hand-to-mouth MOE is greater than 1,000 based on default values for the fraction of application rate available for transfer after a turf application. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    In 2016, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs released a guidance document entitled, “Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis” https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/pesticide-cumulative-risk-assessment-framework. This document provides guidance on how to screen groups of pesticides for cumulative evaluation using a two-step approach beginning with the evaluation of available toxicological information and if necessary, followed by a risk-based screening approach. This framework supplements the existing guidance documents for establishing common mechanism groups (CMGs) and conducting cumulative risk assessments (CRA). The Agency has utilized this framework for flazasulfuron and determined that although flazasulfuron shares some chemical and/or toxicological characteristics (e.g., chemical structure or apical endpoint) with other pesticides, the toxicological database does not support a testable hypothesis for a common mechanism of action. No further data is required to determine that no common mechanism of toxicity exists for flazasulfuron and other pesticides and no further cumulative evaluation is necessary for flazasulfuron.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The available data indicate that flazasulfuron produced developmental effects in the rabbit (increased abortions), and reproductive effects in the rat (decreased pup body weight), only at maternally/parentally toxic dose levels, and these developmental/offspring effects were not more severe than maternal/parental effects (increased abortions the rabbit, increased nephropathy and decreased pup body weight in the rat). While developmental effects (increased incidence of interventricular septal defect and reduced fetal weights) were seen in rats in the absence of maternal toxicity, an indication of quantitative and qualitative susceptibility, clear NOAELs and LOAELs have been established for these adverse fetal effects. Furthermore, the PODs used for risk assessment are lower than doses associated with these developmental effects. Therefore, the assessments are protective of the observed offspring effects, and the Agency has no concerns for quantitative or qualitative susceptibility.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for flazasulfuron is complete.

    ii. An acute neurotoxicity study was conducted with flazasulfuron at dose levels up to 2,000 mg/kg. Mean motor activity measurements at dose levels of 1,000 and 2,000 mg/kg for males and females were statistically significantly decreased from the respective control groups five hours post-dosing. Animals were less active with more resting time than controls. The effect was reversed by the next scheduled observation (Day 7). Neurohistopathologic evaluation did not demonstrate any test material related neurotoxic lesions following the examination of tissues from the central and peripheral nervous systems of high dose and control animals. The NOAEL was 50 mg/kg. A subchronic neurotoxicity study was conducted with flazasulfuron at up to 732 mg/kg bw/day in the diet for 90 days. No biologically relevant neurotoxic effects were observed at the dose levels tested. The available neurotoxicity battery, therefore, did not raise concern for neurotoxicity. Similarly, the subchronic and chronic data in the database did not show any adverse effects that could be considered as neurotoxicity.

    iii. While there is evidence of increased qualitative and quantitative susceptibility in the young based on rat malformations and decreased fetal weight in two rat developmental toxicity studies, the FQPA Safety Factor is reduced to 1X and is protective of the observed offspring susceptibility because there are clear NOAELs for the developmental effects in the two rat studies developmental toxicity studies and the PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of those effects.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The exposure databases are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably account for potential exposures. The acute and chronic dietary food exposure assessment were conservatively based on tolerance-level residues on the currently registered and proposed crops, 100% CT assumptions, and conservative ground water drinking water modeling estimates. The Agency does not believe that the non-dietary residential exposures are underestimated because they are also based on conservative assumptions. All of the exposure estimates are based on conservative assumptions and are not likely to result in underestimated risk.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to flazasulfuron will occupy 3.1% of the aPAD for infants less than one-year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to flazasulfuron from food and water will utilize 23% of the cPAD for infants less than one-year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of flazasulfuron is not expected.

    3. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk. There is potential short-term aggregate exposure to flazasulfuron via the dietary pathway (which is considered background exposure) and the residential pathway (which is considered the primary pathway). Since intermediate-term residential exposures are not likely to occur, intermediate-term aggregate risks were not assessed. Since there is no dermal endpoint, the short-term aggregate exposure assessment for adults includes dietary (food and drinking water) and inhalation handler exposures and results in an aggregate MOE of 1,600. The short-term aggregate exposure assessment for children 1-2 years old includes dietary (food and drinking water) and post-application hand-to-mouth exposure from treated turf and results in an aggregate MOE of 810. Because EPA's level of concern for flazasulfuron is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. A cancer aggregate risk assessment was not conducted because there was no evidence of carcinogenicity to humans based on lack of carcinogenic effects in the rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to flazasulfuron residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement method is available. The method uses high performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry with multiple reaction monitoring (HPLC/MS-MS/MRM). The LOQ is 0.01 ppm.

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for flazasulfuron.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flazasulfuron, herbicide, in or on olive at 0.01 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.655, add alphabetically the entry “Olive” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.655 Flazasulfuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Olive 0.01 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2017-10763 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029 FRL-9961-99] Fenazaquin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fenazaquin in or on hop, dried cones; nuts, tree, group 14-12; pineapple; and tea, dried. Gowan Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 25, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 24, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 24, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029, 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 CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances

    In the Federal Registers of March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14030) (FRL-9942-86); May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31581) (FRL-9946-02); and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53379) (FRL-9949-53) EPA issued documents pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 6F8442, PP 5F8429, and PP 6E8466) by Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366-5569. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.632 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the miticide/insecticide fenazaquin, 4-[2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]ethoxy]quinazoline, in or on hops at 30 parts per million (ppm) (PP 6F8442); nuts, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm (PP 5F8429); pineapple at 0.2 ppm (PP 6E8466); and tea at 9 ppm (PP 6E8466). The petitions also requested that the existing tolerance for almond at 0.2 ppm be removed upon establishment of the above tolerance for nut, tree group 14-12. Those documents referenced summaries of the petitions prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant, which are available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the Notices of Filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fenazaquin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fenazaquin follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    The most consistently observed effects of fenazaquin exposure across species, sexes, and treatment durations were decreases in body weight, food consumption, and food efficiency. These effects were consistent with the commonly observed effects for compounds that disrupt mitochondrial electron transport system. Fenazaquin is a member of this class of chemicals.

    Fenazaquin did not produce developmental effects in rats and rabbits with prenatal exposure. It also did not cause reproductive effects, although it produced decreased body weight in the offspring at a dose where maternal body reduction also occurred in the reproduction study. The available data did not demonstrate clear neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, or genotoxicity. The data in the immunotoxicity study showed an increased incidence of ataxia/hypo-activity with gavage dosing, but the effects were judged to be resulting from general malaise. Fenazaquin is also classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, based on a lack of treatment-related cancer effects in two carcinogenicity studies.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fenazaquin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, “Fenazaquin (044501); Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Proposed Uses on tree nuts, group 14-12, and Hops, Dried Cones” in pp. 11-17 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenazaquin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of May 6, 2015 (80 FR 25953) (FRL-9925-97).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to fenazaquin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fenazaquin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.632. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fenazaquin in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for fenazaquin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues, default processing factors, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all proposed and registered uses.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16 software with 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues, default processing factors, and 100 PCT for all proposed and registered uses.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that fenazaquin does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for fenazaquin. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. In drinking water, the residues of concern are fenazaquin (parent) and two metabolites: Metabolite M29 or 2-(4-{2-[(2-hydroxyquinazolin-4-yl)oxy]ethyl}phenyl)-2-methylpropanoic acid and its tautomer 2-methyl-2-(4-{2-[(2-oxo-1,2-dihydroquinazolin-4-yl)oxy]ethyl}phenyl)propanoic acid; and Metabolite 1 or 4-[2-(4-tert-butyl-phenyl)-ethoxy]-quinazolin-2-ol and its tautomer 4-[2-(4-tert-butylphenyl)ethoxy]quinazolin-2(1H)-one. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for fenazaquin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of fenazaquin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC version 1.52), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fenazaquin and its metabolites of concern for acute exposures are estimated to be 23.8 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.112 ppb for ground water, for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 3.19 ppb for surface water and 0.891 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 23.8 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 3.19 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Fenazaquin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamental plants. There is a potential for exposure associated with handler (i.e., mixing, loading and applying), as well as post-application exposure from the use of fenazaquin on ornamental plants. However, for residential exposure associated with handlers, all registered fenazaquin product labels with residential use sites (e.g., ornamental plants) require that handlers wear specific clothing (e.g., long-sleeve shirt/long pants/chemical resistant gloves) and/or use personal protective equipment (PPE). Therefore, the Agency has made the assumption that these products are not for homeowner use, and has not conducted a quantitative residential handler assessment.

    With respect to the potential residential post-application exposure from the use of fenazaquin on ornamental plants, since there is (1) no adverse systemic hazard via the dermal route of exposure; (2) inhalation exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings; and (3) there is no incidental oral exposure expected from fenazaquin use on ornamental plants, a residential post-application assessment is unnecessary. Furthermore, since the extent to which young children engage in activities associated with these areas or utilize these areas for prolonged periods of play is low, significant non-dietary ingestion exposure is not expected.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    Unlike other pesticides, for which EPA followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to fenazaquin and any other substances, and fenazaquin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that fenazaquin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Susceptibility/sensitivity in the developing animals was evaluated in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits as well as a reproduction and fertility study in rats. The data showed no evidence of increased sensitivity/susceptibility in the developing fetuses or young animals. Clear NOAELs and LOAELs are available for all the parental and offspring effects.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for fenazaquin is complete.

    ii. The available data do not provide evidence that fenazaquin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that fenazaquin results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fenazaquin in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fenazaquin.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to fenazaquin will occupy 11% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to fenazaquin from food and water will utilize 9.6% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure, when the additional uses for hops, dried cones and nuts, tree, group 14-12 are considered. The chronic exposure will increase to 9.9% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, when tea and pineapple are also assessed (See “Fenazaquin, Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments to Support Use of the Insecticide (Without Section 3 Registration) on Imported Tea and Imported Pineapple” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029). Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of fenazaquin is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because there is no dermal endpoint and no potential short-term residential inhalation or incidental oral exposure to fenazaquin, a short-term risk is not expected.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because there is no dermal endpoint and no potential intermediate-term inhalation or oral residential exposure to fenazaquin, an intermediate-term risk is not expected.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, fenazaquin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to fenazaquin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, high-performance liquid chromatography with positive ion electrospray ionization with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS/MS), is available to enforce the tolerance expression. However, for tea, residues were analyzed using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) in selected ion monitoring mode.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established MRLs for fenazaquin in/on hop, dried cones; nuts, tree, group 14-12; pineapple; or tea, dried.

    C. Response to Comments

    The majority of comments submitted to this docket concerned chemicals or actions not associated with the fenazaquin petitions. One comment was submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in response to the Notice of Filing for PP 6F8442 and PP 5F8429 and was primarily concerned about environmental risks and Agency compliance with any relevant obligations under the Endangered Species Act. This comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the fenazaquin tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential harms to human health, not effects on the environment.

    The three remaining comments were anonymous public comments submitted in response to the Notice of Filing, which stated, in part, to “Deny this petition. It is harmful and is a toxic chemical”; “there is insufficient information on all facets of hazard from this toxic chemical”; and “We, as Americans, do not need or want any more EPA regulations.” The Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops; however, these comments provide no supporting information upon which to evaluate the safety of pesticide. The existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The Agency has evaluated the available information and determined that these tolerances are safe.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fenazaquin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on hop, dried cones at 30 ppm; nuts, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm; pineapple at 0.20 ppm; and tea, dried at 9.0 ppm. In addition, the Agency is removing the separate tolerance for almonds as it is unnecessary because almond is a commodity covered by the crop group tolerances for nuts, tree, group 14-12.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.632, amend the table in paragraph (a) as follows: a. Remove the entry for “Almond”. b. Add alphabetically the entries for “hop, dried cones”; “nuts, tree, group 14-12”; “pineapple”; and “tea, dried”. c. Add a footnote at the end of the table.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 180.632 Fenazaquin; Tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Hop, dried cones 30.0 *    *    *    *    * Pineapple 1 0.20 Nuts, Tree, Group 14-12 0.02 Tea, dried 1 9.0 1 There are no U.S. registrations as of May 25, 2017 for use on pineapple and tea.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10751 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0143; FRL-9960-76] Isopyrazam; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of isopyrazam in or on pepper, bell; tomato; and vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 25, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 24, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0143, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0143 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 24, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0143, 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 CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL-9950-22), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5E8433) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.654 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide isopyrazam, in or on cucurbit crop subgroup 9A at 0.3 parts per million (ppm); pepper, bell at 0.6 ppm; and tomato at 0.5 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing a lower tolerance than was requested for pepper, bell and is revising the commodity terminology for vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for isopyrazam including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with isopyrazam follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    Subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies in the rat, mouse, rabbit and dog demonstrate that the primary target organ for isopyrazam is the liver (increased organ weight and centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy). Liver toxicity is usually accompanied by reductions in bodyweight and food consumption. Isopyrazam did not cause reproductive toxicity. Effects seen in the offspring (decreased bodyweight during lactation and increase liver weight at weaning) in the rat reproduction study occurred at the same doses that cause general toxicity in the parents. Developmental effects described as small eyes and/or microphthalmia were observed in both the Himalayan and New Zealand rabbit strains. However, in the Himalayan strain, the intraocular abnormalities occur in the absence of maternal toxicity while in the New Zealand strain, the ocular abnormalities occurred at doses that were maternally toxic. Developmental effects observed in the rat (increased post-implantation loss, reduced fetal weight, and a non- or incomplete ossification or retardation of ossification) occurred at doses that also produced maternal toxicity (mortality, decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption, increased liver weights and microscopic findings in the liver).

    No evidence of specific neurotoxicity was seen in acute and subchronic oral neurotoxicity studies in rats. Clinical signs seen in two subchronic dog studies (side-to-side head wobble, ataxia, reduced stability) are consistent with neurotoxic effects. However, detailed and specific neuropathological analyses were not conducted for the dog studies (i.e., functional observational battery, motor activity, detailed histopathology with special stains). Consequently, there is uncertainty regarding whether the effects seen in the dog studies are in fact signs of neurotoxicity. However, clear no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs)/lowest adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were established for both subchronic dog studies. The point of departure selected for the acute dietary assessment is based on clinical signs seen on day 2 in one of four males in the subchronic dog study. This study provides the lowest NOAEL in the database (most sensitive endpoint) for a single dose effect. The dose used for the chronic dietary risk assessment is eight times lower than the dose at which clinical effects were seen at four weeks in the second subchronic dog study.

    There is no evidence of immunotoxicity based on a 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study in mice. The LOAEL for immunotoxicity was not identified and the NOAEL for immunotoxicity was 1,356 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg).

    Isopyrazam is classified as “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on increased incidence of uterine endometrial adenocarcinomas and liver hepatocellular adenomas in female rats and increased incidence of thyroid follicular cell adenomas and/or carcinomas in male rats. Isopyrazam is not carcinogenic in the mouse. There is no evidence of genotoxicity, mutagenicity, or clastogenicity in the in vivo and in vitro studies. There are no structural relationships with other known carcinogens. A linear low-dose approach (Q1*) was used to extrapolate experimental animal tumor data for the quantification of human cancer risk.

    Isopyrazam is of low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes and is not a skin or eye irritant.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by isopyrazam as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Isopyrazam: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of Tolerances with No U.S. Registrations in/on Cucurbit Vegetables Crop Subgroup 9A, Bell Pepper and Tomato Imported from Belgium, Greece, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0143.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for isopyrazam used for human risk assessment is discussed in Table 1 of the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 27, 2013 (78 FR 78740) (FRL-9903-53).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to isopyrazam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing isopyrazam tolerances in 40 CFR 180.654. EPA assessed dietary exposures from isopyrazam in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for isopyrazam. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, maximum residues from field trials conducted at the maximum use rates were used to estimate isopyrazam residues of concern and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) assumptions were used. Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) default processing factors were used for all processed commodities including dried apple (8.0), apple juice/cider (1.3), dried banana/plantain (3.9), peanut butter (1.89), dried tomato (14.3), tomato juice (1.5), tomato paste (5.4), and tomato puree (3.3). In the absence of peanut processing data, the maximum theoretical concentration factor was used for peanut oil (2.8).

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used the average residues from field trials conducted at the maximum use rates were used to estimate isopyrazam and the same processing factors and PCT assumptions as in the acute dietary exposure analysis.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that isopyrazam should be classified as “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” and a linear approach has been used to quantify cancer risk. In evaluating the cancer risk, EPA used the same residue levels, processing factors and PCT assumptions as in the chronic dietary exposure analysis.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use PCT information in the dietary assessment for isopyrazam. Maximum or average residue levels from field trials conducted at the maximum use rates were assumed for all food commodities.

    Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. An assessment of residues in drinking water is not needed for isopyrazam because there is no drinking water exposure for isopyrazam uses, which are all non-domestic.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Isopyrazam is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA has not found isopyrazam to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and isopyrazam does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that isopyrazam does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility even though qualitative susceptibility was observed in the range-finding developmental studies in rabbits. Developmental effects (eye abnormalities) were observed in the absence of maternal toxicity in two range finding developmental toxicity studies in the Himalayan rabbit. However, the eye effects were only observed at relatively high doses (200-400 mg/kg/day) with clear NOAELs/LOAELs established for the developmental effects. Developmental effects observed in the rat (increased post-implantation loss, reduced fetal weight and non-or incomplete ossification or retardation of ossification) occurred only at doses that also produced maternal toxicity (mortality, decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption). There was no evidence of increased susceptibility in a 2-generation reproduction study following pre- or postnatal exposure to isopyrazam. There was also no evidence of neuropathology or abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system from the available toxicity studies conducted with isopyrazam. Clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental effects observed in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects (increased liver weights) seen in the 2-generation reproduction study and a dose-response relationship for the effects of concern is well characterized. The dose used for the acute dietary risk assessment (30 mg/kg/day), based on effects seen in the subchronic dog study, is protective of the developmental effects seen in rats (44.5 mg/kg/day) and rabbits (200 mg/kg/day). Based on these considerations, there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for isopyrazam is complete.

    ii. As discussed in Unit III.A, there is no indication that isopyrazam is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2, there are no residual uncertainties for pre-and/or post-natal susceptibility.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and maximum or average residue levels from field trials conducted at the maximum use rates. There are no currently registered or proposed occupational or residential uses of isopyrazam in the U.S. and adequate residue data are available. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by isopyrazam.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to isopyrazam at the 95th percentile will occupy 4.7% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to isopyrazam from food will utilize 5.0% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for isopyrazam.

    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure (which includes both food and water and is considered to be a background exposure level). Isopyrazam is not registered in the United States. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD, no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for isopyrazam.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for cancer exposure, the cancer dietary risk estimate for the U.S. population is 3 × 10−6. EPA generally considers cancer risks (expressed as the probability of an increased cancer case) in the range of 1 in 1 million (or 1 × 10−6) or less to be negligible. The precision that can be assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by rounding to the nearest integral order of magnitude on the logarithmic scale; for example, risks falling between 3 × 10−7 and 3 × 10−6 are expressed as risks in the range of 10−6. Considering the precision with which cancer hazard can be estimated, the conservativeness of low-dose linear extrapolation, and the rounding procedure described above, cancer risk should generally not be assumed to exceed the benchmark level of concern of the range of 10−6 until the calculated risk exceeds approximately 3 × 10−6. This is particularly the case where some conservatism is maintained in the exposure assessment. For isopyrazam, EPA's exposure assessment assumes average residues of concern from field trials reflecting the maximum use rates, default processing factors, the maximum theoretical concentration for residues in peanut oil, and 100 PCT, which is highly conservative. Accordingly, EPA has concluded the cancer risk from exposure to isopyrazam falls within the range of 10−6 and is thus negligible.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to isopyrazam residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (GRM006.01B) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected].

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established MRLs for isopyrazam in or on vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A; pepper, bell; and tomato.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the residue levels observed in the field trial studies, EPA is establishing a tolerance of 0.50 ppm in or on pepper, bell in lieu of the 0.6 ppm as requested by the petitioner. The tolerance requested for Cucurbit Crop Group 9A is also being established as Vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A, which is the standard commodity description for these commodities. The petitioned-for tolerances for residues of isopyrazam in/on cucurbit crop group 9A (0.3 ppm) and tomato (0.5 ppm) are set at 0.30 ppm and 0.50 ppm, respectively, consistent with the current practices for setting tolerances.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of isopyrazam, (3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-[1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-9-(1-methylethyl)-1,4-methano-naphthalen-5-yl]-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide), determined as the sum of its syn-isomer (3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-[(1RS, 4SR, 9RS)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-9-(1-methylethyl)-1,4-methanonaphthalen-5-yl]-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide) and anti-isomer (3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-[(1RS, 4SR, 9SR)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-9-(1-methylethyl)-1,4-methano-naphthalen-5-yl]-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide), in or on vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A at 0.30 ppm; pepper, bell at 0.50 ppm; and tomato at 0.50 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 25, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.654, add alphabetically the entries “Pepper, bell”, “Tomato”, and “Vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A” to the table in paragraph (a), and revise footnote 1 at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 180.654 Isopyrazam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Table 1—Authorized Take Numbers, by Species Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Pepper, bell 1 0.50 Tomato 1 0.50 Vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A 1 0.30 1 There are no U.S. registrations for use of isopyrazam on these commodities.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10765 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8481] 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 https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the tables in the amendment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

    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. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

    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] 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.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain
  • Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region III Pennsylvania: Fairview, Township of, Erie County 420450 September 10, 1973, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. June 7, 2017 June 7, 2017. Girard, Borough of, Erie County 422413 July 18, 1975, Emerg; June 30, 1976, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do *   Do. Girard, Township of, Erie County 421363 August 20, 1975, Emerg; June 30, 1976, 1976, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Harborcreek, Township of, Erie County 421144 April 9, 1974, Emerg; September 17, 1980, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Lake, City of Borough of, Erie County 422414 September 11, 1975, Emerg; June 30, 1976, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Lawrence Park, Township of, Erie County 420451 June 1, 1973, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Millcreek, Township of, Erie County 420452 April 16, 1973, Emerg; April 16, 1979, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. North East, Borough of, Erie County 421359 April 29, 1975, Emerg; February 4, 1981, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. North East, Township of, Erie County 421368 October 29, 1974, Emerg; May 19, 1981, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Springfield, Township of, Erie County 421369 December 2, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1982, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Region V Illinois: Decatur, City of, Macon County 170429 July 29, 1974, Emerg; August 1, 1979, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Region VI Arkansas: Amagon, City of, Jackson County 050097 November 7, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1981, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Grubbs, Town of, Jackson County 050101 April 16, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1981, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Jackson County, Unincorporated Areas 050096 May 5, 1975, Emerg; August 16, 1982, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Newport, City of, Jackson County 050103 June 20, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1982, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Swifton, City of, Jackson County 050104 May 1, 1975, Emerg; January 2, 1979, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Tuckerman, City of, Jackson County 050105 May 9, 1975, Emerg; February 4, 1981, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Tupelo, City of, Jackson County 050106 June 4, 1975, Emerg; January 23, 1979, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Texas: Fairview, Town, Collin County 481069 January 18, 1977, Emerg; November 1, 1979, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Region VIII North Dakota: New Rockford, City of, Eddy County 380031 March 11,1997, Emerg; June 1, 1998, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. Stutsman County, Unincorporated Areas 380119 February 23, 2010, Emerg; May 24, 2011, Reg; June 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. -do- = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: May 17, 2017. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10697 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 170316276-7483-02] RIN 0648-XF300 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Black Sea Bass Fishery; Revised 2017 and Projected 2018 Specifications AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this rule, NMFS issues revised final 2017 and projected 2018 specifications, and removes a previously implemented commercial fishery accountability measure for the 2017 black sea bass fishery. These actions are necessary to comply with regulations implementing the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, and to ensure compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The intended effect of this rule is to revise 2017 black sea bass catch limits to afford more opportunity to obtain optimum yield and to inform the public of projected changes to 2018 catch limits.

    DATES:

    Effective May 25, 2017, through January 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Black sea bass are jointly managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission as part of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Specifications in these fisheries include various catch and landing subdivisions, such as the commercial and recreational sector annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and sector-specific landing limits (i.e., the commercial fishery quota and recreational harvest limit).

    On December 28, 2015, NMFS published a final rule implementing the Council's recommended 2016-2018 specifications for the black sea bass fishery (80 FR 80689). The Council intended to reconsider the specifications set for fishing year 2017 following completion of the next black sea bass benchmark assessment in late 2016/early 2017.

    As detailed in the proposed rule (82 FR 17964; April 14, 2017), the peer-reviewed assessment indicates that the black sea bass stock north of Cape Hatteras is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The spawning stock biomass in 2015 (the terminal year of the assessment) was estimated to be 2.3 times higher than the target and the fishing mortality rate was 25 percent below the overfishing threshold. Additional information on the assessment and the Council's recommendation are provided in the proposed rule and not repeated here. This final rule implements the Council's recommended black sea bass specifications for the 2017 fishing year and updates projected specifications for 2018. By providing projected specifications for 2018, NMFS hopes to assist fishery participants in planning ahead. This rule also removes the commercial fishery accountability measure (AM) previously implemented to the 2017 fishing year (81 FR 93842; December 22, 2016). Final 2018 specifications will be published in the Federal Register before the start of the 2018 fishing year (January 1, 2018) following the Council's review.

    NMFS will consider any needed changes to the 2017 recreational management measures (i.e., minimum fish size, per-angler possession limits, and fishing seasons) for black sea bass through a separate action before summer 2017.

    Revised 2017 and Projected 2018 Black Sea Bass Specifications

    This rule implements the revised 2017 and projected 2018 acceptable biological catch (ABC) and commercial and recreational catch limits (Table 1), as outlined in the proposed rule.

    The revised 2017 specifications represent a 53-percent increase from the previously implemented 2017 commercial quota, and a 52-percent increase in the 2017 recreational harvest limit.

    Table 1—Revised Black Sea Bass Specifications for 2017 and Projected Specifications for 2018 Black sea bass specifications 2017 (Current) million lb mt 2017 (Revised) million lb mt 2018 (Projected) million lb mt OFL n/a n/a 12.05 5,467 10.29 4,669 ABC 6.67 3,025 10.47 4,750 8.94 4,057 Commercial ACL 3.15 1,428 5.09 2,311 4.35 1,974 Commercial ACT * 3.15 * 1,428 5.09 2,311 4.35 1,974 Estimated Commercial Discards 0.44 198 0.97 442 0.83 377 Commercial Quota * 2.71 * 1,226 4.12 1,869 3.52 1,596 Recreational ACL 3.52 1,597 5.38 2,439 4.59 2,083 Recreational ACT 3.52 1,597 5.38 2,439 4.59 2,083 Estimated Recreational Discards 0.70 317 1.09 494 0.93 422 Recreational Harvest Limit 2.82 1,280 4.29 1,945 3.66 1,661 * These commercial catch specifications were reduced by the AM implemented in December, 2016. The revised 2017 specifications rescind the AM reductions (see next section for details). Removal of the 2017 Accountability Measure for the Commercial Fishery

    NMFS previously announced an AM applicable to the 2017 black sea bass commercial fishery in December 2016 (81 FR 93842). This AM was an automatic pound-for-pound payback of a 2015 fishing year ACL overage, resulting in a 30-percent quota reduction in 2017. If the new stock assessment had been available to set 2015 specifications, catch limits would have been considerably higher, and the 2015 ACL would not have been exceeded. Consistent with the rationale outlined in the proposed rule, we are not deducting the 2015 overage from these revised 2017 specifications.

    Comments and Responses

    On April 14, 2017, NMFS published the proposed revisions to the black sea bass specifications. NMFS received two comments on the proposed rule. Both commenters expressed support for the quota increases, noting the benefits for both the black sea bass and lobster industries. No changes to the proposed specifications were made as a result of these comments.

    Classification

    The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that these specifications are necessary for the conservation and management of the black sea bass fishery and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive the requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness period for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3), because a delay in its effectiveness would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The delay would be unnecessary because this action imposes no new requirements or burdens on the public, therefore, the public need not take any steps to comply with this rule. The delay would be contrary to the public interest because this action provides economic benefits to fishery participants by substantially increasing both commercial and recreational catch limits, without resulting in overfishing. Failure to make this final rule effective immediately will undermine the intent of the rule, which is to promote the optimal utilization and conservation of the black sea bass resource. Furthermore, the revised 2017 specifications remove an accountability measure from the commercial fishery that had further restricted catch, so their timely implementation also relieves an additional constraint upon fishing opportunity. These changes would have been incorporated into the initial 2017 black sea bass specifications published in December 2016 (81 FR 93842), but final data from the peer-reviewed benchmark stock assessment was not released by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center until January 2017, and could not be reviewed by the Council and Commission until February 2017.

    Many states adjust their own quota management strategies to avoid overages in the commercial black sea bass fishery each year. If the 30-day delay of effectiveness is not waived, unnecessarily restrictive state measures will remain in effect longer and put commercial vessels at a disadvantage. It is important to implement these changes as quickly as possible to prevent loss of potential catch and economic opportunity.

    If this final rule were delayed for 30 days, the fishery would forego some amount of landings and revenues during the delay period. For these reasons, a 30-day delay in effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest as this rule relieves quota-related restrictions. As a result, NMFS is waiving the requirement.

    This final rule is exempt from the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification, and the initial certification remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10693 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 100 Thursday, May 25, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 930 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0104; SC16-930-4 PR] Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin; Modification of Allocation of Assessments AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Tart Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) to increase the portion of assessments allocated to research and promotion activities from $0.005 to $0.006 per pound of tart cherries and decrease the portion allocated to administrative expenses from $0.0025 to $0.0015 per pound of tart cherries handled under the marketing order (order). The overall assessment rate would remain unchanged at $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries. The Board locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of tart cherries operating within the area of production, and one public member. Assessments upon tart cherry handlers are used by the Board to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins October 1 and ends September 30. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202)720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930, both as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries produced in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13771, 13563, and 13175.

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, tart cherry handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable tart cherries beginning on October 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

    This proposed rule would increase the portion of the assessment rate allocated to research and promotion activities from $0.005 to $0.006 per pound of tart cherries and decrease the portion allocated to administrative expenses from $0.0025 to $0.0015 per pound of tart cherries. The overall assessment rate for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods would remain unchanged at $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries.

    The tart cherry marketing order provides authority for the Board, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Board are producers and handlers of tart cherries, and one public member. They are familiar with the Board's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local areas and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

    For the 2010-11 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Board recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to USDA.

    The Board met on September 8, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $2,523,550 and an assessment rate of $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,725,000. The total assessment rate remains unchanged by this proposed action. However, this proposed rule would increase the portion of the assessment rate allocated to research and promotion activities from $0.005 to $0.006 per pound of tart cherries and decrease the portion allocated to administrative expenses from $0.0025 to $0.0015 per pound of tart cherries. This shift in allocation would allow for expanded research and promotion activities to help market this season's above-average crop, while helping to ensure that the funds held in the Board's authorized reserve are consistent with the order's limits on the reserve.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2016-17 year include $2,045,550 for promotion, $255,000 for personnel, and $106,000 for office expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $1,150,000, $236,000, and $102,000, respectively.

    The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived by considering expected shipments of tart cherries and examining the needs of the industry with regard to research and promotion and the authorized reserve. Tart cherry shipments for the 2016-17 year are estimated at 314.7 million pounds, which should provide $2,360,250 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, interest income, and funds from the Board's authorized reserve would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (approximately $894,000) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of no more than approximately one year's operational expenses as stated in § 930.42.

    The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information.

    Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Board would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or USDA. Board meetings are open to the public, and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2016-17 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

    There are approximately 600 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area and approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Board data, the average annual grower price for tart cherries during the 2015-16 season was approximately $0.347 per pound. With total utilization at 251.1 million pounds, the total 2015-16 crop value is estimated at $87 million. Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of producers (600) yields an estimated average receipt per producer of $145,000. This is well below the SBA threshold for small producers. In 2015, The Food Institute estimated a free on board (f.o.b.) price of $0.96 per pound for frozen tart cherries, which make up the majority of processed tart cherries. Multiplying the f.o.b price by total utilization of 251.1 million pounds results in an estimated handler-level tart cherry value of $241 million. Dividing this figure by the number of handlers (40) yields an estimated average annual handler receipts of $6 million, which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of tart cherries may be classified as small entities.

    This proposal would increase the portion of the assessment rate allocated to research and promotion activities from $0.005 to $0.006 per pound of tart cherries and decrease the portion allocated to administrative expenses from $0.0025 to $0.0015 per pound of tart cherries. The overall assessment rate established for the Board for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods would remain unchanged at $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries. The quantity of assessable tart cherries for the 2016-17 season is estimated at 314.7 million pounds. Thus, the $0.0075 rate should provide $2,360,250 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, interest income, and funds from the Board's authorized reserve should provide sufficient funds to meet this year's anticipated expenses.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2016-17 year include $2,045,550 for promotion, $255,000 for personnel, and $106,000 for office expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $1,150,000, $236,000, and $102,000, respectively.

    This proposed rule would shift the allocation of the assessment rate to increase the portion allocated for research and promotion, while decreasing the portion allocated for administrative costs. This adjustment would allow for expanded research and promotion activities to help market this season's above-average crop, while helping to ensure that the funds held in the Board's authorized reserve are consistent with the order's limits on the reserve.

    Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Board considered production history, crop estimates, its financial statements, and the need to both reduce financial reserves and increase its marketing efforts to increase demand for tart cherries. The Board also considered not taking this action, but determined that 2016-17 expenditures of $2,523,550 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rate and allocation, along with funds from interest income, block grants, and funds from reserves, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

    A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the average grower price for the 2016-17 season could be approximately $0.348 per pound of tart cherries. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2016-17 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue would be approximately 2 percent.

    This action would not increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order.

    The Board's meetings were widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 23, 2016, and September 8, 2016, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this proposed action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930

    Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, tart cherries.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WISCONSIN 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 930 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 930.200 is revised to read as follows:
    § 930.200 Assessment rate.

    On and after October 1, 2016, the assessment rate imposed on handlers shall be $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries grown in the production area and utilized in the production of tart cherry products. Included in this rate is $0.006 per pound of tart cherries to cover the cost of the research and promotion program and $0.0015 per pound of tart cherries to cover administrative expenses.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10677 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 996 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0102; SC16-996-3 PR] Minimum Quality and Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the United States; Change to the Quality and Handling Requirements AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Peanut Standards Board (Board) to revise the minimum quality and handling standards for domestic and imported peanuts marketed in the United States (Standards). The Board advises the Secretary of Agriculture regarding potential changes to the Standards and is comprised of producers and industry representatives. This action would relax the allowance for damaged kernels in farmers stock peanuts when determining segregation. This change would increase the allowance for damaged kernels under Segregation 1 from not more than 2.49 percent to not more than 3.49 percent. The requirements for Segregation 2 would also be adjusted to reflect this change. The Board recommended this change to align the incoming standards with recent changes to the outgoing quality standards and to help increase returns to producers.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposal will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3775, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is issued pursuant to Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Act). The Standards regulate the quality and handling of domestic and imported peanuts marketed in the United States.

    Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 13771

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

    Executive Order 13175

    This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect and shall not abrogate nor nullify any other statute, whether State or Federal, dealing with the same subjects as this Act; but is intended that all such statutes shall remain in full force and effect except in so far as they are inconsistent herewith or repugnant hereto (7 U.S.C. 587).

    There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

    The Act requires that USDA take several actions with regard to peanuts marketed in the United States. These include ensuring mandatory inspection on all peanuts marketed in the United States; developing and implementing peanut quality and handling requirements; establishing the Board comprised of producers and industry representatives to advise USDA regarding the quality and handling requirements under the Standards; and modifying those quality and handling requirements when needed. USDA is required by the Act to consult with the Board prior to making any changes to the Standards.

    Pursuant to the Act, USDA has consulted with Board members in its review of the changes to the Standards included in this proposed rule. This proposed rule invites comments on a revision to relax the allowance for damaged kernels in farmers stock peanuts when determining segregation. The Board recommended changing the allowance for damaged kernels under Segregation 1 from not more than 2.49 percent to not more than 3.49 percent. The requirements for Segregation 2 would also be adjusted to reflect this change. The Board believes these changes would align the incoming standards with recent revisions to the outgoing quality standards and increase returns to producers. These changes were recommended by the Board at its meeting on September 1, 2016.

    The Standards establish minimum incoming and outgoing quality requirements for domestic and imported peanuts marketed in the United States. Section 996.8 defines incoming inspection as the sampling, inspection, and certification of farmers stock peanuts to determine segregation and grade quality. Section 996.13 of the Standards defines three levels of segregation for incoming farmers stock peanuts. Segregation 1 is currently defined as farmers stock peanuts with not more than 2.49 percent damaged kernels nor more than l.00 percent concealed damage caused by rancidity, mold, or decay and which are free from visible Aspergillus flavus. Segregation 2 is currently defined as farmers stock peanuts with more than 2.49 percent damaged kernels or more than l.00 percent concealed damage caused by rancidity, mold, or decay and which are free from visible Aspergillus flavus, and Segregation 3 is defined as farmers stock peanuts with visible Aspergillus flavus. Section 996.30 outlines the incoming quality standards, which specify that all farmers stock peanuts received by handlers shall be inspected and certified as to segregation and moisture content.

    Segregation 1 encompasses the majority of incoming farmers stock peanuts. Segregation 2 peanuts have historically constituted roughly one percent of the domestic crop. However, there has been a slight increase for the previous two years to 2.5 percent in 2014 and 3 percent for 2015. The fluctuation in the percentage of Segregation 2 peanuts is likely the result of weather conditions around harvest time.

    A group of several entities representing peanut producers wrote a letter to the Board requesting that the Board review the allowance for damaged kernels for farmers stock peanuts. In their letter, the producer groups stated they believe the loan value for Segregation 2 peanuts under the Farm Service Agency's marketing assistance loans program remains low. Even though changes in regulations and technology allow Segregation 2 peanuts to now be cleaned and resold at a higher market rate, there has been little change in the loan value for these peanuts. The letter further stated that should a farmer have their entire crop graded Segregation 2, it could be economically devastating. Therefore, the letter requested an increase in the allowance for damaged kernels for Segregation 1 from 2.49 to 3.49 percent, shifting more peanuts into the category of Segregation 1.

    The Board discussed this request at its September 1, 2016, meeting. In its discussion, the Board recognized the large difference between the loan rate for Segregation 1 and for Segregation 2 peanuts. The Board agreed that many Segregation 2 peanut lots can be cleaned-up to meet the outgoing quality standards with minimal cost involved. This allows a significant portion of the Segregation 2 peanuts purchased to be utilized at a higher value after processing.

    There has been significant industry advancement in technology since the 2002 Farm Bill established the Standards. Before 2002, Segregation 2 peanuts had to be sent to a crusher and could not be reworked to meet the outgoing quality standards. In recent years, the improvements in technology have allowed the industry to utilize Segregation 2 peanuts and still meet outgoing quality standards. Further, recent changes to the outgoing quality standards relaxed the allowance for damaged kernels from 2.5 to 3.5 percent for kernels and for cleaned-inshell peanuts (81 FR 50283, published August 31, 2016). This relaxation made additional peanuts available for sale for human consumption. This proposed change would make a corresponding adjustment to the damage requirements for incoming peanuts. The change would relax the allowance for damaged kernels under the definition for Segregation 1 peanuts from 2.49 to 3.49 percent, which would shift a small portion of peanuts from Segregation 2 into the Segregation 1 category.

    The effect of this change on the overall quality of peanuts in the industry would be minimal. In considering this issue, the Board reviewed data from the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness. The data indicated that roughly one third of Segregation 2 farmers stock peanuts would be shifted into the Segregation 1 category under the proposed change. Since Segregation 2 historically composes approximately one percent of total farmers stock peanuts, this adjustment would represent a very small shift in overall volume. Therefore, the proposed change would have an insignificant impact on the composition of Segregation 1 peanuts.

    As the producer value of farmers stock peanuts is determined in part by the category of segregation, the segregation level determined during the incoming inspection impacts producer returns. If a producer experiences a shift in damage that moves their peanuts from a Segregation 1 to a Segregation 2, it can have a significant financial impact, especially for small producers. This change would benefit the industry by moving more peanuts into the Segregation 1 category. This should increase returns and help lower financial risk to producers by shifting more peanuts into the higher value Segregation 1 category.

    This change would also require increasing the Segregation 2 criteria from more than 2.49 percent to more than 3.49 percent damaged kernels. The Board recommended these changes, in part, to align the incoming standards with the recent changes that were made to the outgoing quality standards earlier this year. Further, the Board believes the 3.49 percent allowance for damaged kernels would represent an acceptable level of damage while maintaining quality peanuts.

    Consequently, the Board recommended increasing the percent damaged kernel allowance under Segregation 1 from not more than 2.49 percent to not more than 3.49 percent. The Board voted 13-2 in support of the proposed changes. One of the two Board members voting against the changes was concerned that the decision was being made without enough data and was concerned about maintaining the quality of peanuts. Several Board members responded that this change was not a new issue for the industry. Further, this change has been well supported by producer groups prompting this action. These changes are consistent with the Standards and the Act.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.

    Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms, including handlers and importers, are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    There are approximately 7,500 peanut producers, 60 peanut handlers, operating approximately 70 shelling plants, and 25 importers subject to regulation under the peanut program.

    An approximation of the number of peanut farms that could be considered small agricultural businesses under the SBA definition can be obtained from the 2012 Agricultural Census, which is the most recent information on the number of farms categorized by size. There were 3,066 peanut farms with annual agricultural sales valued at less than $500,000 in 2012, representing 47 percent of the total number of peanut farms in the U.S. (6,561). According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), peanut production for the 2014 and 2015 crop years averaged 5.7 billion pounds. The average value of production for the two-year period was $1.173 billion. The average producer price over the two-year period was $0.21 per pound. Dividing the two-year average production value of $1.173 billion by the approximate number of peanut producers of 7,500 results in an average revenue per producer of approximately $156,000, well below the SBA threshold for small producers.

    Dividing the two-year average production value of $1.173 billion by the approximate number of peanut handlers of 60 results in an average revenue per handler of approximately $19,550,000. Using a normal distribution, the majority of handlers may be considered large entities. Further, according to the Foreign Agricultural Service's Global Agricultural Trade System, the average annual value of peanuts imported into the United States for the 2014 and 2015 seasons was approximately $67 million. By dividing the annual average value of imported peanuts by the number of importers, the majority of importers would meet the SBA definition for small agricultural service firms. Consequently, the majority of producers and importers may be classified as small entities, but the majority of handlers may be considered large entities when using a normal distribution.

    This proposed rule would relax the allowance for damaged kernels in farmers stock peanuts when determining segregation. This action would change the allowance for damaged kernels under Segregation 1 from not more than 2.49 percent to not more than 3.49 percent. The Board believes this proposed rule would align incoming farmers stock peanuts segregation with the outgoing quality standards and increase returns to producers.

    It is not anticipated that this action would impose additional costs on handlers, producers, or importers, regardless of size. Rather, these changes should help improve returns to peanut producers and help lower financial risk.

    This proposed rule is expected to benefit the industry. The effects of this rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less for small handlers, producers or importers than for larger entities.

    The USDA has considered alternatives to these changes. The Act requires USDA to consult with the Board on changes to the Standards. An alternative discussed was to increase the damaged kernel percentage up to 4.49 percent for Segregation 1. However, the Board believes this alternative would relax the kernel damage too far. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.

    USDA has met with the Board, which is representative of the industry, and has included its recommendations in this rule.

    The Act specifies in § 1604(c)(2)(A) that the Standards established pursuant to it may be implemented without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). However, USDA has considered the reporting and recordkeeping burden on handlers and importers under this program. This proposed rule would relax the allowance for damaged kernels in farmers stock peanuts when determining segregation under the Standards. Recordkeeping requirements would remain the same. Accordingly, this rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large handlers or importers.

    Section 1601 of the Act also provides that amendments to the Standards may be implemented without extending interested parties an opportunity to comment. However, due to the nature of the proposed changes, interested parties are provided with a 30-day comment period.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

    The Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the peanut industry and all interested persons were invited to attend and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the September 1, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on these issues. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because farmers stock peanuts are already being delivered from the 2016-17 crop. Further, the industry is aware of this proposed action recommended by the Board. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 996

    Food grades and standards, Marketing agreements, Peanuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 996 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 996—MINIMUM QUALITY AND HANDLING STANDARDS FOR DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED PEANUTS MARKETED IN THE UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 996 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 7958.

    2. Section 996.13 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 996.13 Peanuts.

    (b) Segregation 1. “Segregation 1 peanuts” means farmers stock peanuts with not more than 3.49 percent damaged kernels nor more than 1.00 percent concealed damage caused by rancidity, mold, or decay and which are free from visible Aspergillus flavus.

    (c) Segregation 2. “Segregation 2 peanuts” means farmers stock peanuts with more than 3.49 percent damaged kernels or more than l.00 percent concealed damage caused by rancidity, mold, or decay and which are free from visible Aspergillus flavus.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10680 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0102 and EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0758; FRL-9962-02-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; NH; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Program Revisions; Public Hearing Revisions for State Permitting Programs; Withdrawal of Permit Fee Program; Infrastructure Provisions for National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve several different State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to EPA by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). New Hampshire submitted to EPA on October 26, 2016, revisions satisfying the NHDES's earlier commitment to adopt and submit provisions that meet certain requirements of the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) air permit program regulations. This proposed action will convert to full approval EPA's September 25, 2015 conditional approval of New Hampshire's PSD and NNSR permit programs. This action also will approve NHDES's SIP revisions relating to several New Hampshire infrastructure SIPs, which were conditionally approved by EPA on December 16, 2015, and July 8, 2016.

    Additionally, EPA is also proposing to approve: a January 31, 2017 SIP revision amending the public notice and hearing procedures for New Hampshire's NNSR, PSD, and minor NSR permit programs; a January 18, 2017 SIP revision withdrawing the State SIP's permit fee system; and a November 17, 2015 SIP revision that addresses the good neighbor provisions of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 nitrogen oxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0102 and EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0758 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ida E. McDonnell, Manager, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone number (617) 918-1653, fax number (617) 918-0653, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 19, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09538 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 161220999-7467-01] RIN 0648-BG52 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2017; Recreational Management Measures AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to modify recreational management measures for Gulf of Maine cod and haddock for the 2017 fishing year. This action proposes to prohibit recreational possession of cod, reduce the haddock bag limit, and implement a new closed season for haddock in the fall. The intended effect of this action is to reduce catch of cod and haddock. This action is necessary to ensure fishing year 2017 recreational catch limits are not exceeded.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0048, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0048 2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and 3. Enter or attach your comments. —OR—

    Mail: Submit written comments to: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Fishing Year 2017 Groundfish Recreational Measures.”

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of the analyses supporting this rulemaking, including the Framework Adjustment 55 environmental assessment (EA) prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council, a supplemental EA to Framework Adjustment 55 prepared by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and the supplemental information report (SIR) are available from: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The Framework Adjustment 55 EA, supplemental EA, and SIR are also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Grant, Sector Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9145; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents 1. Fishing Year 2017 Recreational Management Measures 2. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority 1. Proposed Recreational Management Measures for Fishing Year 2017 Background

    The recreational fishery for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and haddock is managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Under the FMP, specific sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACL) for the recreational fishery are established for each fishing year for GOM cod and haddock. These sub-ACLs are a portion of the overall catch limit for each stock. The multispecies fishery opens on May 1 each year and runs through April 30 of the following calendar year. The FMP also contains recreational accountability measures to prevent the recreational sub-ACLs from being exceeded, or to correct the cause if an overage of one occurs.

    The proactive accountability measure provision in the FMP indicates that the Regional Administrator shall, in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, develop recreational management measures for the upcoming fishing year necessary to ensure that the sub-ACL is achieved, but not exceeded. The provisions authorizing this action can be found in § 648.89(f)(3) of the FMP's implementing regulations. This action also proposes additional measures necessary to facilitate enforcement of recreational management measures. These measures and corrections to other regulations also in this action are proposed under the authority of § 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which states that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that FMPs are implemented in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    Recreational catch and effort data are estimated by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), a comprehensive, multi-faceted survey system administered by NMFS that collects data from recreational anglers and captains. In 2016, the recreational sub-ACL for GOM cod increased 30 percent, and the recreational sub-ACL for GOM haddock increased 149 percent. Accordingly, the recreational measures set for 2016 were more liberal than the 2015 measures to increase recreational fishing opportunities and catch. However, in 2016, cod catch increased more than predicted and the recreational sub-ACL was exceeded by 92 percent. Haddock catch slightly exceeded the sub-ACL (by 15 percent). For 2017, the recreational sub-ACL for GOM haddock increases 25 percent, from 928 mt to 1,160 mt, and the recreational sub-ACL for GOM cod remains unchanged at 157 mt. As specified in Table 1, compared to the 2016 catch, the 2017 sub-ACLs would allow for a 9-percent increase in haddock catch, but would require a 48-percent reduction in cod catch.

    Table 1—Fishing Year 2016 Catch Compared to Fishing Year 2016 and 2017 Sub-ACLs GOM stock 2016 Catch
  • (mt)
  • 2016 Sub-ACL
  • (mt)
  • Catch of
  • 2016 sub-ACL
  • (percent)
  • 2017 Sub-ACL
  • (mt)
  • Change in
  • 2016 catch
  • to reach
  • 2017 sub-ACL
  • (percent)
  • Cod 302 157 192 157 −48 Haddock 1,066 928 115 1,160 +9
    Analysis of Measures for Fishing Year 2017

    A peer-reviewed bioeconomic model, developed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, was used to estimate 2017 recreational GOM cod and haddock mortality under various combinations of minimum sizes, possession limits, and closed seasons. Even when incorporating zero possession of GOM cod, the model estimates that the status quo measures for GOM haddock are not expected to constrain the catch of haddock, or the bycatch of cod, to the 2017 catch limits. The model estimates that the status quo haddock measures would result in cod catch of 292 mt and haddock catch of 1,299 mt (see Table 3), which would be 186 percent of the cod sub-ACL and 112 percent of the haddock sub-ACL.

    Proposed Measures

    Because the recreational measures currently in place for GOM cod and haddock are not expected to constrain fishing year 2017 catch to the sub-ACLs, the proactive accountability measure requires adjustment of the management measures. The proposed measures are slightly more restrictive than the current measures. Recreational possession of GOM cod would be prohibited. The minimum size for GOM haddock would be unchanged, but the bag limit would be reduced from 15 fish to 12 fish, and a fall closed season would be added to the existing spring closure. We are soliciting comment on two different fall closures, as described in more detail below. The proposed fishing year 2017 recreational measures for GOM cod and haddock are specified in Table 2, along with information on fishing year 2016 measures for comparison.

    Table 2—Proposed GOM Cod and Haddock Recreational Management Measures for Fishing Year 2017 and Status Quo (Fishing Year 2016) Measures 2017 Measures Haddock Haddock
  • possession limit
  • (per angler)
  • Minimum fish size
  • (inches)
  • Closed season Cod Cod possession limit
  • (per angler)
  • Minimum fish size
  • (inches)
  • Closed season
    Council Recommended 12 fish 17 3/1-4/14
  • 9/17-10/31
  • N/A N/A 5/1-4/30
    Additional NMFS Option 12 fish 17 3/1-4/14
  • 9/1-9/30
  • N/A N/A 5/1-4/30
    Status Quo 15 fish 17 3/1-4/14 1 fish 24 5/1-7/31
  • 10/1-4/30
  • Council Recommendations

    We consulted with the Council, and its Recreational Advisory Panel (RAP), in January 2017. The RAP met on January 18, 2017, to review catch projections under various scenarios of changed measures for fishing year 2017. The RAP discussed a number of alternatives, and specifically decided against any options that would include closures in May or that would set different measures for private anglers and for-hire vessels. Ultimately, the RAP recommended the option that prohibited cod possession, and for haddock maintained the 17-inch minimum size, reduced the bag limit from 15 to 12 fish, and added a fall closure from September 17 through October 31 to the existing spring closure. On January 25, 2017, the Council discussed recreational measures for 2017. The Council declined the Groundfish Oversight Committee's suggestion to implement separate measures for the private and for-hire modes at this time in deference to having a larger public process to consider the concept. Ultimately, the Council recommended we implement the RAP's recommended option (see Table 2).

    The proposed measures are projected to result in fishing year 2017 recreational GOM cod and haddock catches that do not exceed the sub-ACLs (see Table 3), as explained further below. The analyses supporting this action are available as outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this rule's preamble.

    Table 3—Projected Fishing Year 2017 Recreational Cod and Haddock Catch Under Proposed Measures and Status Quo 2017 Measures Haddock Possession Limit
  • (per angler)
  • Minimum Fish Size
  • (inches)
  • Closed
  • Season
  • Predicted
  • Haddock Catch (mt)
  • Probability Haddock Catch Below sub-ACL
  • (percent)
  • Predicted Cod Catch
  • (mt)
  • Probability Cod Catch Below
  • sub-ACL
  • (percent)
  • Council Recommended 12 fish 17 3/1-4/14
  • 9/17-10/31
  • 1,160 50 147 78
    Additional NMFS Option 12 fish 17 3/1-4/14
  • 9/1-9/30
  • 1,137 70 149 78
    Status Quo 15 fish 17 3/1-4/14 1,299 0 292 0

    The bioeconomic model's predicted probabilities that catch will remain at or below the sub-ACLs are informative. However, we are using preliminary MRIP data that will change when vessel trip report data from the for-hire fleet is incorporated (after June 15). MRIP estimates are highly variable from year to year. This combination of factors makes it difficult for the model to produce consistent predictions and to assess the underlying reasons for the discrepancies between predicted and actual catch. Historically, while the model's predictive power increases each year, the model underestimates recreational catch. Recent measures have generally resulted in catch close to the sub-ACLs; however, a number of overages have still occurred.

    NMFS Additional Option

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires accountability measures to ensure compliance with ACLs. In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Guindon v. Pritzker, 2014 WL 1274076 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2014) ruled against the agency's recreational fishery measures in the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery because the measures did not include a sufficient buffer, or additional accountability measures, to account for the management uncertainty represented by repeated ACL overages in past years. In light of the bioeconomic model's prediction that the Council's recommended measures have only a 50-percent probability of preventing haddock catch from exceeding the sub-ACL, the model's history of underestimating catch, and multiple overages over the past five years it may be prudent to implement more conservative measures. Therefore, in addition to the Council's recommended haddock measures, we are requesting comment on a set of measures with the same minimum size and bag limit, but a different fall closure (Additional NMFS Option in Table 2). As shown in Table 3, the model predicts shifting from a 6-week fall closure (9/17-10/31), as recommended by the Council, to a 4-week September closure (9/1-9/30), would slightly reduce haddock catch and increase the probability that haddock catch would not exceed the sub-ACL. The key difference is that closing the entirety of September eliminates high catches associated with Labor Day weekend. Thus, a shorter fall closure could be a more conservative approach; however, this closure would be at the expense of a holiday weekend that is popular with private anglers and economically important to a portion of the for-hire fleet.

    We are particularly interested in comments on the effects of the different fall closures of the Council's recommended option and NMFS additional option.

    2. Regulatory Corrections and Other Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority

    In § 648.89(b), we have added an exception to the minimum fish sizes for GOM cod and haddock to allow vessels to transit the GOM Regulated Mesh Area while in possession of cod and haddock caught outside the area, provided those fish meet the minimum sizes specified for fish caught outside the area. Amendment 16 to the FMP included seasonal closures of the GOM recreational fishery for cod and haddock, and also implemented a possession limit exemption to allow vessels to transit the GOM when it was closed while in possession of fish legally caught outside the area. At that time, there was a single minimum size for cod, and a single minimum size for haddock, regardless of where the fish were caught and the transiting provision included in Amendment 16 did not address minimum fish size restrictions.

    Subsequently, we have changed the minimum sizes for GOM cod and haddock as part of the proactive accountability measures. We adjust the recreational measures for only GOM cod and haddock because these are the only stocks allocated a recreational sub-ACL. This has created a complicated system in which vessels may transit the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with fish legally caught outside the area in excess of the GOM possession limits, but those vessels must comply with the most restrictive minimum size of the two areas, rather than the minimum size applicable to where the fish were caught. The intent of this change is to simplify the existing transiting exemption by allowing any cod and haddock legally caught outside the GOM to be possessed by vessels transiting the GOM to ensure consistent implementation of the existing transiting provision.

    In § 648.89(e), we have revised the text specifying the requirements for the letters of authorization allowing charter and party boats to fish in the GOM closed areas and the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area to improve readability. In paragraph (e)(3), we have also corrected the name of the NMFS office issuing letters of authorization from the “Northeast Regional Office” to the “Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office.”

    In § 648.89(f)(2)(ii), we removed text prohibiting the Regional Administrator from adjusting the possession limit for GOM cod while recreational possession of GOM cod was prohibited by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. In 2016, Framework Adjustment 55 removed this prohibition, but the final rule implementing Framework Adjustment 55 inadvertently failed to remove this text. This change in intended to correct the regulations to accurately reflect the Council's intent in Framework Adjustment 55.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

    This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts. The IRFA includes sections of the preamble (SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) and analyses supporting this rulemaking, including the Framework Adjustment 55 EA, the supplemental EA to Framework Adjustment 55, and the supplemental information report. A summary of the analysis follows (see ADDRESSES).

    Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered

    Because the recreational measures currently in place for GOM cod and haddock are not expected to constrain fishing year 2017 catch to the sub-ACLs, this action proposes new measures, as required by the FMP, to ensure that the sub-ACL is achieved, but not exceeded.

    Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule

    The accountability measures outlined in the FMP indicate that the Regional Administrator may, in consultation with the Council, modify the recreational management measures for the upcoming fishing year to ensure that the sub-ACL is achieved, but not exceeded. The provisions authorizing this action can be found in § 648.89(f)(3) of the FMP's implementing regulations. The intended effect of this action is to reduce catch of cod and haddock. This action is necessary to ensure fishing year 2017 recreational catch limits are not exceeded.

    Additional measures necessary to facilitate enforcement of these accountability measures, consistent with the FMP, are authorized by section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In § 648.89(b), we have added an exception to the minimum fish sizes for GOM cod and haddock to allow vessels to transit the GOM Regulated Mesh Area while in possession of cod and haddock caught outside the area, provided those fish meet the minimum sizes specified for fish caught outside the area.

    In § 648.89(e), we have revised the text specifying the requirements for the letters of authorization allowing charter and party boats to fish in the GOM closed areas and the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area to improve readability.

    In § 648.89(f)(2)(ii), we removed text prohibiting the Regional Administrator from adjusting the possession limit for GOM cod while recreational possession of GOM cod was prohibited by the Northeast Multispecies FMP to accurately reflect the Council's intent in Framework Adjustment 55.

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small commercial finfishing or shellfishing business as a firm with annual receipts (gross revenue) of up to $11.0 million. A small for-hire recreational fishing business is defined as a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million. Having different size standards for different types of fishing activities creates difficulties in categorizing businesses that participate in multiple fishing related activities. For purposes of this assessment business entities have been classified into the SBA-defined categories based on which activity produced the highest percentage of average annual gross revenues from 2013-2015, the most recent three-year period for which data are available. This classification is now possible because vessel ownership data have been added to Northeast permit database. The ownership data identify all individuals who own fishing vessels. Using this information, vessels can be grouped together according to common owners. The resulting groupings were treated as a fishing business for purposes of this analysis. Revenues summed across all vessels in a group and the activities that generate those revenues form the basis for determining whether the entity is a large or small business.

    The proposed regulations include closed seasons in addition to possession limits and size limits. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that for-hire businesses are directly affected by all three types of recreational fishing restrictions. According to the FMP, it is unlawful for the owner or operator of a charter or party boat issued a valid multispecies permit, when the boat is carrying passengers for hire, to:

    • Possess cod or haddock in excess of the possession limits.

    • Fish with gear in violation of the regulations.

    • Fail to comply with the applicable restrictions if transiting the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with cod or haddock on board that was caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area.

    As the for-hire owner and operator can be prosecuted under the law for violations of the proposed regulations, for-hire business entities are considered directly affected in this analysis. Anglers are not considered “entities” under the RFA and thus economic impacts on anglers are not discussed here.

    For-hire fishing businesses are required to obtain a Federal charter/party multispecies fishing permit in order to carry passengers to catch GOM cod or haddock. Thus, the affected businesses entities of concern are businesses that hold Federal multispecies for-hire fishing permits. While all business entities that hold for-hire permits could be affected by changes in recreational fishing restrictions, not all business that hold for-hire permits actively participate in a given year. Those who actively participate, i.e., land fish, would be the group of business entities that are impacted by the regulations. Latent fishing power (in the form of unfished permits) has the potential to alter the impacts on a fishery, but it's not possible to predict how many of these latent business entities will or will not participate in this fishery in fishing year 2017. The Northeast Federal landings database (i.e., vessel trip report data) indicates that a total of 645 party/charter vessels held a multispecies for-hire fishing permit in 2015 (the most recent full year of available data). Of the 645 for-hire permitted vessels, however, only 208 actively participated in the for-hire Atlantic cod and haddock fishery in fishing year 2015 (i.e., reported catch of cod or haddock).

    Using vessel ownership information developed from Northeast Federal permit data and Northeast vessel trip report data, it was determined that the 208 actively participating for-hire vessels are owned by 191 unique fishing business entities. The vast majority of the 208 fishing businesses were solely engaged in for-hire fishing, but some also earned revenue from shellfish and/or finfish fishing. The highest percentage of annual gross revenues though for all but 18 of the fishing businesses was from for-hire fishing. In other words, the revenue from for-hire fishing was greater than the revenue from shellfishing and the revenue from finfish fishing for all but 18 of the business entities.

    According to the SBA size standards, small for-hire businesses are defined as firms with annual receipts of up to $7.5 million, and small commercial finfishing or shellfishing business as firms with annual receipts (gross revenue) of up to $11.0 million. Average annual gross revenue estimates calculated from the most recent three years (2013-2015) indicate that none of the 191 for-hire business entities had annual receipts of more than $5.2 million from all of their fishing activities (for-hire, shellfish, and finfish). Therefore, all of the affected for-hire business entities are considered “small” by the SBA size standards and thus this action will not disproportionately affect small versus large for-hire business entities.

    Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule

    There are no proposed reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

    Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule

    The proposed action is authorized by the regulations implementing the NE Multispecies FMP. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.

    Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    A total of seven combinations of recreational measures were presented to the Recreational Advisory Panel, the Groundfish Oversight Committee, and the Council. This included the status quo and an option (presented to the Panel, Committee, and Council as Option 1) that prohibited cod possession while retaining the current haddock measures that would not have restrained catch to the quotas, and thus, would not have accomplished the objective. The proposed options that would accomplish the objectives were the Council recommended option (presented to the Panel, Committee, and Council as Option 2) and the additional NMFS option (presented to the Panel, Committee, and Council as Option 3), which are discussed in detail in the preamble. The remaining three options (Options 4, 5, and 6 in Table 4) that would accomplish the objective were discussed by all three groups. These remaining options were rejected either because implementation was viewed as confusing to the public (e.g., implementing a May closure shortly after the start of the fishing year on May 1) or in deference to having a larger public process to consider the concept (i.e., separate measures for the private anglers and the for-hire fleet).

    Table 4—Projected Fishing Year 2017 Recreational Cod and Haddock Catch Under Alternative Measures Not Proposed 2017 measures Haddock Haddock possession limit Minimum fish size Closed season Cod Cod
  • possession limit
  • Minimum fish size Closed season Predicted haddock catch (mt) Probability haddock catch below
  • sub-ACL
  • (percent)
  • Predicted cod catch (mt) Probability cod catch below
  • sub-ACL
  • (percent)
  • Option 4 15 17 3/1-4/14 2 weeks in May N/A N/A 5/1-4/30 1,118 73 153 61 Option 5 10 17 3/1-4/14 2 weeks in May N/A N/A 5/1-4/30 1,149 68 157 51 Option 6 Private 12 17 3/1-4/14
  • 9/17-10/31
  • N/A N/A 5/1-4/30 1,159 51 153 55
    Option 6 For Hire 10 17 3/1-4/14 N/A N/A 5/1-4/30
    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: May 19, 2017 Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 648.89: a. Revise paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(1); b. Remove paragraph (c)(2); c. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(8) as paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(7), respectively; d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (c)(7); and e. Revise paragraphs (e) and (f).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 648.89 Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions.

    (b) * * *

    (2) Exceptions—(i) Fillet size. Vessels may possess fillets less than the minimum size specified, if the fillets are taken from legal-sized fish and are not offered or intended for sale, trade or barter.

    (ii) Transiting. Vessels in possession of cod or haddock caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1) may transit this area with cod and haddock that meet the minimum size specified for fish caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(b)(1), provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods, and any cod and haddock on board has been gutted and stored.

    (c) Possession Restrictions—(1) Cod— (i) Outside the Gulf of Maine—(A) Private recreational vessels. Each person on a private recreational vessel may possess no more than 10 cod per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing outside of the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (B) Charter or party boats. Each person on a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, may possess unlimited cod in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing outside of the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (ii) Gulf of Maine—(A) Private recreational vessels. When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1), persons aboard private recreational fishing vessels may not fish for or possess cod, except that each person on a private recreational vessel in possession of cod caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area may transit this area with cod up to the possession limit specified at § 648.80(c)(1)(i)(A), provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods and any cod on board has been gutted and stored.

    (B) Charter or party boats. When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1), persons aboard a charter or party fishing boat may not fish for or possess cod, except that each person on a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, in possession of cod caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1) may transit this area in possession of cod caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with cod up to the possession limit specified at § 648.80(c)(1)(i)(B), provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods and any cod on board has been gutted and stored.

    (iii) For purposes of counting fish, fillets will be converted to whole fish at the place of landing by dividing the number of fillets by two. If fish are filleted into a single (butterfly) fillet, such fillet shall be deemed to be from one whole fish.

    (iv) Cod harvested by recreational fishing vessels in or from the EEZ with more than one person aboard may be pooled in one or more containers. Compliance with the possession limit will be determined by dividing the number of fish on board by the number of persons on board. If there is a violation of the possession limit on board a vessel carrying more than one person, the violation shall be deemed to have been committed by the owner or operator of the vessel.

    (v) Cod must be stored so as to be readily available for inspection.

    (7) Haddock—(i) Outside the Gulf of Maine—(A) Private recreational vessels. Each person on a private recreational vessel may possess unlimited haddock in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing outside of the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (B) Charter or party boats. Each person on a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, may possess unlimited haddock in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing outside of the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (ii) Gulf of Maine—(A) Private recreational vessels. Each person on a private recreational vessel in possession of haddock caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1) may transit this area with more than the GOM haddock possession limit specified at paragraph (c)(8)(ii) of this section up to the possession limit specified at paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods and any haddock on board has been gutted and stored.

    (1) May 1 through September 17. Each person on a private recreational fishing vessel, fishing from May 1 through September 17, may possess no more than 12 haddock per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (2) September 18 through October 31. When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1), persons aboard private recreational fishing vessels may not fish for or possess any haddock from September 18 through October 31.

    (3) November through February. Each person on a private recreational fishing vessel, fishing from November 1 through February 28 (February 29 in leap years), may possess no more than 12 haddock per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (4) March 1 through April 14. When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1), persons aboard private recreational fishing vessels may not fish for or possess any haddock from March 1 through April 14.

    (5) April 15 through April 30. Each person on a private recreational fishing vessel, fishing from April 15 through April 30, may possess no more than 12 haddock per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (B) Charter or party boats. Each person on a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, in possession of haddock caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1) may transit this area with more than the GOM haddock possession limit specified at paragraph (c)(8)(ii) of this section up to the possession limit specified at paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods and any haddock on board has been gutted and stored.

    (1) May 1 through September 17. Each person on a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, fishing from May 1 through September 17, may possess no more than 12 haddock per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (2) September 18 through October 31. When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1), persons on a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, may not fish for or possess any haddock from September 18 through October 31.

    (3) November through February. Each person on a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, fishing from November 1 through February 28 (February 29 in leap years), may possess no more than 12 haddock per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (4) March 1 through April 14. When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1), persons aboard a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, may not fish for or possess any haddock from March 1 through April 14.

    (5) April 15 through April 30. Each person on a charter or party fishing boat permitted under this part, and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip, fishing from April 15 through April 30, may possess no more than 12 haddock per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1).

    (iii) For purposes of counting fish, fillets will be converted to whole fish at the place of landing by dividing the number of fillets by two. If fish are filleted into a single (butterfly) fillet, such fillet shall be deemed to be from one whole fish.

    (iv) Haddock harvested in or from the EEZ by private recreational fishing boats or charter or party boats with more than one person aboard may be pooled in one or more containers. Compliance with the possession limit will be determined by dividing the number of fish on board by the number of persons on board. If there is a violation of the possession limit on board a vessel carrying more than one person, the violation shall be deemed to have been committed by the owner or operator of the vessel.

    (v) Haddock must be stored so as to be readily available for inspection.

    (e) Charter/party vessel restrictions on fishing in GOM closed areas and the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area—(1) GOM Closed Areas. (i) A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations may not fish in the GOM closed areas specified in § 648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(4) during the time periods specified in those paragraphs, unless the vessel has on board a valid letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator pursuant to § 648.81(f)(5)(v) and paragraph (e)(3) of this section. If the vessel fishes or intends to fish in the GOM cod protection closures, the conditions and restrictions of the letter of authorization must be complied with for a minimum of 3 months. If the vessel fishes or intends to fish in the year-round GOM closure areas, the conditions and restrictions of the letter of authorization must be complied with for the rest of the fishing year, beginning with the start of the participation period of the letter of authorization.

    (ii) A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations may not fish in the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area specified at § 648.81(n)(1) during the time period specified in that paragraph, unless the vessel complies with the requirements specified at § 648.81(n)(2)(iii).

    (2) Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations may not fish in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area specified in § 648.81(c)(1) unless the vessel has on board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator pursuant to § 648.81(c)(2)(iii) and paragraph (e)(3) of this section.

    (3) Letters of authorization. To obtain either of the letters of authorization specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, a vessel owner must request a letter from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, either in writing or by phone (see Table 1 to 50 CFR 600.502). As a condition of these letters of authorization, the vessel owner must agree to the following:

    (i) The letter of authorization must be carried on board the vessel during the period of participation;

    (ii) Fish species managed by the NEFMC or MAFMC that are harvested or possessed by the vessel, are not sold or intended for trade, barter or sale, regardless of where the fish are caught;

    (iii) The vessel has no gear other than rod and reel or handline gear on board; and

    (iv) For the GOM charter/party closed area exemption only, the vessel may not fish on a sector trip, under a NE multispecies DAS, or under the provisions of the NE multispecies Small Vessel Category or Handgear A or Handgear B permit categories, as specified at § 648.82, during the period of participation.

    (f) Recreational fishery AM—(1) Catch evaluation. As soon as recreational catch data are available for the entire previous fishing year, the Regional Administrator will evaluate whether recreational catches exceed any of the sub-ACLs specified for the recreational fishery pursuant to § 648.90(a)(4). When evaluating recreational catch, the components of recreational catch that are used shall be the same as those used in the most recent assessment for that particular stock. To determine if any sub-ACL specified for the recreational fishery was exceeded, the Regional Administrator shall compare the 3-year average of recreational catch to the 3-year average of the recreational sub-ACL for each stock.

    (2) Reactive AM adjustment. If it is determined that any recreational sub-ACL was exceeded, as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the Regional Administrator, after consultation with the NEFMC, shall develop measures necessary to prevent the recreational fishery from exceeding the appropriate sub-ACL in future years. Appropriate AMs for the recreational fishery, including adjustments to fishing season, minimum fish size, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final measures published in the Federal Register no later than January when possible. Separate AMs shall be developed for the private and charter/party components of the recreational fishery.

    (3) Proactive AM adjustment. When necessary, the Regional Administrator, after consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, may adjust recreational measures to ensure the recreational fishery achieves, but does not exceed any recreational fishery sub-ACL in a future fishing year. Appropriate AMs for the recreational fishery, including adjustments to fishing season, minimum fish size, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final measures published in the Federal Register prior to the start of the fishing year where possible. In specifying these AMs, the Regional Administrator shall take into account the non-binding prioritization of possible measures recommended by the Council: For cod, first increases to minimum fish sizes, then adjustments to seasons, followed by changes to bag limits; and for haddock, first increases to minimum size limits, then changes to bag limits, and then adjustments to seasons.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10703 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 170330338-7470-01] RIN 0648-XF335 Pacific Island Fisheries; 2017-18 Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed specifications; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to specify an annual catch limit (ACL) of 306,000 lb for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2017-18 fishing year, which will begin on September 1, 2017, and end on August 31, 2018. If NMFS projects that the fishery will reach the ACL, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year as an accountability measure (AM). The proposed ACL and AM support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive comments by June 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed 2017-18 ACL, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0033, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0033, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    NMFS prepared an environmental analysis that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from the proposed specification. The environmental analysis and other supporting documents are available at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5173.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage the bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around Hawaii under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (FEP), as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Deep 7 bottomfish are onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapuupuu (Hyporthodus quernus). The regulations at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, part 665 (50 CFR 665.4) requires NMFS to specify an ACL for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish each fishing year, based on a recommendation from the Council.

    NMFS proposes to specify an ACL of 306,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI for the 2017-18 fishing year. The Council recommended the proposed ACL, based on a 2011 bottomfish stock assessment updated in 2015 with three additional years of data, and taking into consideration the risk of overfishing, past fishery performance, the acceptable biological catch recommendation from its Scientific and Statistical Committee, and input from the public. This update to the 2011 NMFS bottomfish stock assessment estimated the overfishing limit for the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish stock complex to be 352,000 lb, which is 31,000 lb less than the estimated overfishing limit in the 2011 stock assessment. Based on this update, the Council recommended a three-year phased reduction of the ACL. NMFS prepared an environmental assessment, dated March 17, 2016 (available at www.regulations.gov), of the Council's three-year phased reduction of the ACL (entitled “Specification of Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish Fisheries in Fishing Years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18”). The proposed ACL of 306,000 lb for 2017-18 is the third annual reduction in this phased approach, and is 12,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS specified last year (82 FR 5429, January 18, 2017).

    The ACL is associated with a 39-percent probability of overfishing, and is more conservative than the 50-percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS monitors Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii. If NMFS projects the fishery will reach this limit, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year, as an accountability measure (AM). As an additional AM, in the event that NMFS and the Council determine that the final 2017-18 Deep 7 bottomfish catch exceeds the ACL, NMFS would reduce the Deep 7 bottomfish ACL for the 2018-19 fishing year by the amount of the overage.

    The fishery has not caught the specified limit in any year since 2011. NMFS does not expect the proposed ACL and AM specifications for 2017-18 to result in a change in fishing operations, or other changes to the conduct of the fishery that would result in significant environmental impacts. After considering public comments on the proposed ACL and AMs, NMFS will publish the final specifications.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the Hawaii FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to these proposed specifications.

    NMFS proposes to specify an ACL of 306,000 lb for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, as recommended by the Council, for the 2017-18 fishing year, which will begin on September 1, 2017, and end on August 31, 2018. NMFS monitors MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii. If NMFS projects that the fishery will reach this limit, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year as an AM. The proposed ACL is 12,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS implemented for the 2016-17 fishing year, 20,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS implemented for the 2015-16 fishing year, and 40,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS implemented in each of the four fishing years, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The AM would remain the same. Over the past five fishing seasons, the highest reported annual landings, 309,485 lb, occurred during the 2013-14 fishing year. NMFS does not expect that the fishery would reach the limit during the 2017-18 fishing year. Additionally, the proposed AM would allow NMFS to close the fishery to prevent the fishery from exceeding the proposed ACL. NMFS is preparing a new stock assessment that would account for fishery performance in previous years, which NMFS and the Council would consider in recommending an ACL for fishing year 2018-2019.

    This rule would affect commercial and non-commercial fishermen who catch MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. Specifically, during the 2015-16 fishing year, 368 fishermen reported landing 259,530 lb of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. With regard to the 2016-17 fishing year, which is currently underway, as of March 28, 2017, 302 fishermen have caught 180,951 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish, which represents 57% of the 2016-17 ACL for Deep 7 bottomfish. For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million or all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all affected entities—vessels in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish—are small entities under the NMFS standard, as they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, independently owned or operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.

    As for revenues earned by fishermen from MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, State of Hawaii records report that 328 of the 368 fishermen sold their MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catch during the 2015-16 fishing year. These 328 individuals sold a combined total of 240,183 lb (92.5 percent of reported catch) at a value of $1,716,313. Based on these revenues, the average price for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in 2015-16 was approximately $7.15/lb. NMFS assumed that either the remaining 40 commercial fishermen sold no Deep 7 bottomfish, or the State of Hawaii reporting program did not capture their sales. With regard to the 2016-17 fishing year currently underway, as of March 28, 2016, revenues from sales of Deep 7 bottomfish totaled $1,138,531 from 147,274 lb sold, yielding an average price of $7.73 per lb.

    Assuming the fishery attains the ACL of 306,000 in 2017-18, and using the 2015-16 average price of $7.15/lb, NMFS expects the potential fleet wide revenue during 2017-18 to be $2,187,900 (or approximately $2,023,808 under the assumption that 92.5 percent of catch is sold). If Deep 7 bottomfish catch reached the ACL during the 2017-18 fishing year and all catch were to be sold by the same number of fishermen with sales during 2015-16, each of these 328 commercial fishermen could potentially earn on average $6,671 from the sale of 933 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish. If the fishery reaches the ACL, with 92.5 percent of all Deep 7 bottomfish catch to be sold, then these 328 commercial fishermen would sell an average of 863 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish valued at about $6,171, which is well below the $11 million threshold.

    In general, the relative importance of MHI bottomfish to commercial participants as a percentage of overall fishing or household income is unknown, as the total suite of fishing and other income-generating activities by individual operations across the year has not been examined.

    Even though this proposed specification would apply to a substantial number of vessels, i.e., 100 percent of the bottomfish fleet, as NMFS does not expect this rule to have a significantly adverse economic impact on individual vessels. Landings information from the past five fishing years suggest that Deep 7 bottomfish landings are not likely to exceed the ACL proposed for 2017-18. Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10704 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 100 Thursday, May 25, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. Number AMS-FV-10-0047, FV-16-330] United States Standards for Grades of Cauliflower AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is revising the United States Standards for Grades of Cauliflower. The revision amends the color requirement to allow all colors of cauliflower to be certified to a U.S. grade. In addition, AMS is amending the size requirement to allow curds less than 4 inches in diameter to be certified to a grade, adding marking requirements for curd sizes less than 4 inches in diameter, and removing references to an unclassified category of cauliflower.

    DATES:

    Effective June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Standardization Branch, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Specialty Crops Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Training and Development Center, Riverside Business Park, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, VA 22406.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Dave Horner at the address above, or at phone (540) 361-1128; fax (540) 361-1199; or, email [email protected] The current U.S. Standards for Grades of Cauliflower are available on the Specialty Crops Inspection Division Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/cauliflower-grades-and-standards.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 203(c) (7 U.S.C. 1622(c)) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal marketing orders or U.S. import requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program, and are available on the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards.

    AMS is revising the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Cauliflower using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). The cauliflower grade standards in §§ 51.540 to 51.556 were last revised March 15, 1968.

    Background and Comments

    On February 9, 2012, AMS published a notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 6772) soliciting comments on proposed revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Cauliflower. The industry expressed some confusion about the meaning of some of the proposed revisions and requested clarification. Following the comment period, AMS determined it would not proceed with the revisions as proposed.

    On May 9, 2016, AMS addressed the industry concerns and clarified the issues from the previous notice by publishing in the Federal Register (81 FR 28046) a second notice soliciting comments on proposed revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Cauliflower. No comments were received on this second proposal.

    Based on the information gathered from the industry, AMS is revising the U.S. No. 1 cauliflower color standards by adding the phrase “unless otherwise specified” to the basic requirement for color in § 51.540(a)(3). The phrase “unless otherwise specified” in regards to color will be interpreted as follows: When colors other than white, creamy white, or cream color are specified, cauliflower heads of those colors may be certified to a grade. Likewise, when designated as a mixed-color pack, one grade may be applied to all the cauliflower colors in the pack, not just to the curds that are white, creamy white, or cream color. For example, a grade may be applied to a pack containing a green, an orange, a purple, and a white cauliflower curd when specified as a mixed-color pack.

    AMS is also revising the U.S. No. 1 size provisions in § 51.540(a)(4) for cauliflower heads to read as follows: “Size—not less than 4 inches in diameter, unless marked to a maximum diameter of less than 4 inches. Cauliflower curds marked less than four inches may not be comingled with cauliflower curds packed to be 4 inches and larger. For marking requirements see § 51.556.”

    To explain the marking requirements, AMS is adding “§ 51.556 Marking Requirements,” which reads as follows: “When the product is packed to be less than 4 inches in maximum diameter, 90 percent or more of the master containers shall be plainly stamped, printed, labeled, or otherwise marked with the maximum diameter. The term `maximum' or its recognized abbreviation, when following a diameter size marking, means that the curds are of the size marked or smaller.” The current § 51.556, Metric Conversion Table, is redesignated as § 51.557.

    Furthermore, curds that are specified to be less than 4 inches in maximum diameter do not include cauliflower florets, since florets are pieces of curd and not considered small heads of cauliflower. Therefore, florets cannot be certified to a grade.

    Revisions to the cauliflower color and size requirements also apply to the U.S. Commercial grade. The U.S. Commercial grade consists of heads of cauliflower which meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade except for increased defect tolerances.

    In addition, AMS is removing the “Unclassified” cauliflower category from the standards. The unclassified section is being removed from all standards as they are otherwise revised. This category is not a grade and only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. It is no longer considered necessary.

    AMS believes that permitting all colors, mixed-color packs, and smaller sizes of cauliflower to be certified to a grade reflects current marketing practices and consumer demand, and will facilitate the marketing of cauliflower by providing the industry with more flexibility.

    The official grade of a lot of cauliflower covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (7 CFR 51.1, 7 CFR 51.61).

    The United States Standards for Grades of Cauliflower will be effective 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10674 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-433-812, A-423-812, A-427-828, A-428-844, A-475-834, A-588-875, A-580-887, A-583-858] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty orders on certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (CTL plate) from Austria, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany), Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Taiwan. In addition, the Department is amending its final affirmative determinations with respect to France, Germany, Korea, and Taiwan.

    DATES:

    May 25, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 (Austria), Andrew Medley (202) 482-6345 (Belgium), Terre Keaton Stefanova at (202) 482-1280 (France), David Goldberger at (202) 482-4136 (Germany), Alice Maldonado at (202) 482-4682 (Italy), Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482-2593 (Japan), Michael J. Heaney at (202) 482-4475 (Korea), or Tyler Weinhold (Taiwan) at (202) 482-1121, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on April 4, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.1 On May 18, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determination, pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Austria, Belgium, and Italy that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances findings.2

    1See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Austria: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 16366 (April 4, 2017); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Belgium: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 82 FR 16378 (April 4, 2017); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from France: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 16363 (April 4, 2017) (France Final); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the Federal Republic of Germany: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 16360 (April 4, 2017) (Germany Final); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 16345 (April 4, 2017); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Japan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 16349 (April 4, 2017); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, 82 FR 16369 (April 4, 2017) (Korea Final); and Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances Final, 82 FR 16372 (April 4, 2017) (Taiwan Final).

    2See Letter regarding CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Portugal (May 18, 2017) (ITC Letter). See also Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan Investigation Nos. 701-TA-561 and 731-TA-1317-1318, 1321-1325, and 1327 (Final) USITC Publication 4691 (May 2017) (ITC Report).

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by these orders is certain CTL plate. See Appendix A for Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy, Appendix B for Korea, Appendix C for Japan, and Appendix D for Taiwan.

    Amendment to Final Determinations

    A ministerial error is defined as an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.3

    3See section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).

    France Amended Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), the Department is amending the France Final to reflect the correction of ministerial errors in the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Dillinger France S.A. (Dillinger France). In addition, because Dillinger France's estimated weighted-average dumping margin is the basis for the estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined for all other French producers and exporters of subject merchandise, we also are revising the “all-others” rate in France Final. 45

    4 See “Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins” section below.

    5See Memorandum, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from France: Allegation of Ministerial Error in the Final Determination,” dated April 28, 2017.

    Germany Amended Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), the Department is amending the Germany Final to reflect the correction of a ministerial error in the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke (Dillinger Germany). In addition, because the Department determined the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other German producers and exporters of subject merchandise based on a weighted-average of the respondents' estimated weighted-average dumping margins using publicly-ranged quantities for their sales of subject merchandise, we also are revising the “all-others” rate in Germany Final. 67

    6See the “Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins” section below.

    7See Memorandum, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Germany: Allegation of Ministerial Error in the Final Determination,” dated May 2, 2017.

    Korea Amended Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), the Department is amending the Korea Final to reflect the correction of ministerial errors in the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for POSCO. In addition, because POSCO's estimated weighted-average dumping margin is the basis for the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other Korean producers and exporters of subject merchandise, we also are revising the “all-others” rate in Korea Final. 8 9

    8See the “Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins” section below.

    9See Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea: Allegation of Ministerial Error in the Final Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Taiwan Amended Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), the Department is amending the Taiwan Final to reflect the correction of a ministerial error in the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for China Steel Corporation. In addition, because the Department determined the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other Taiwanese producers and exporters of subject merchandise based on a simple average of the respondents' estimated weighted-average dumping margins, we also are revising the “all-others” rate in Taiwan Final. 10 11 In addition, in the Taiwan Final, we identified an error in the scope language for Taiwan included in the Appendix. See Appendix D, below, for the corrected scope language.

    10See the “Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins” section below.

    11See Memorandum, “Amended Final Determination of the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Taiwan: Allegation of Ministerial Error for China Steel Corporation,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Antidumping Duty Orders

    As stated above, on May 18, 2017, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its determination that the industry in the United States producing CTL plate is materially injured with respect to CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Austria, Belgium, and Italy that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding 12 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    12See ITC Letter and ITC Report.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the NV of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 14, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,13 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication in the Federal Register of the ITC's injury determination as further described below.

    13See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Austria: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of the Final Determination, 81 FR 79416 (November 14, 2016) (Austria Prelim); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To- Length Plate from Belgium: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 79431 (November 14, 2016) (Belgium Prelim); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from France: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 79437 (November 14, 2016) (France Prelim); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the Federal Republic of Germany: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 79446 (November 14, 2016) (Germany Prelim); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Italy: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 79423 (November 14, 2016) (Italy Prelim); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Japan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 79427 (November 14, 2016) (Japan Prelim); Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 79441 (November 14, 2016) (Korea Prelim); and Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 79420 (November 14, 2016) (Taiwan Prelim).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the ITC's affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.14 The relevant “all-others” rates apply to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

    14See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of exports of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, we extended the four-month period to six months in each proceeding.15 In the underlying investigations, the Department published the preliminary determinations on November 14, 2016. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, ended on May 12, 2017.

    15See Austria Prelim, Belgium Prelim, France Prelim, Germany Prelim, Italy Prelim, Japan Prelim, Korea Prelim, and Taiwan Prelim.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after May 12, 2017, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's injury determinations in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's determination in the Federal Register.

    Critical Circumstances

    With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, and Italy, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 16, 2016 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Austria Prelim, Belgium Prelim, and Italy Prelim), but before November 14, 2016 (i.e., the date of publication of the Austria Prelim, Belgium Prelim, and Italy Prelim).

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for each antidumping order are as follows:

    Producer/exporter Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Austria Bohler Bleche GmbH & Co KG, Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG, Bohler International GmbH, voestalpine Grobblech GmbH, and voestalpine Steel Service Center GmbH 53.72 All Others 53.72 Belgium Industeel Belgium S.A 5.40 NLMK Clabecq S.A., NLMK Plate Sales S.A., NLMK Sales Europe S.A., NLMK Manage Steel Center S.A., and/or NLMK La Louviere S.A 51.78 All Others 5.40 France Dillinger France S.A 6.15 Industeel France S.A 148.02 All Others 6.15 Germany AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke 5.52 Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH, and Salzgitter Mannesmann International GmbH 22.90 All Others 21.04 Italy NLMK Verona SpA 22.19 Officine Tecnosider s.r.l 6.08 Marcegaglia SpA 22.19 All Others 6.08 Japan Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd 14.79 JFE Steel Corporation 48.67 Shimabun Corporation 48.67 All Others 14.79 Korea POSCO 7.10 All Others 7.10 Taiwan China Steel Corporation 75.42 Shang Chen Steel Co., Ltd 3.62 All Others 39.52
    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    These amended final determinations and orders are published in accordance with sections 735(e) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c), 351.211(b), and 351.224(e) and (f).

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. APPENDICES (A) Scope of the Orders for CTL Plate From Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy

    The products covered by these orders are certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances (cut-to-length plate). Subject merchandise includes plate that is produced by being cut-to-length from coils or from other discrete length plate and plate that is rolled or forged into a discrete length. The products covered include (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are not in coils and without patterns in relief), and (2) hot-rolled or forged flat steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are not in coils, whether or not with patterns in relief. The covered products described above may be rectangular, square, circular or other shapes and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges).

    For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above, the following rules apply:

    (1) Except where otherwise stated where the nominal and actual thickness or width measurements vary, a product from a given subject country is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this order are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    Subject merchandise includes cut-to-length plate that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to pickling, oiling, levelling, annealing, tempering, temper rolling, skin passing, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, beveling, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if performed in the country of manufacture of the cut-to-length plate.

    All products that meet the written physical description, are within the scope of this order unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this order:

    (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;

    (2) military grade armor plate certified to one of the following specifications or to a specification that references and incorporates one of the following specifications:

    • MIL-A-12560, • MIL-DTL-12560H, • MIL-DTL-12560J, • MIL-DTL-12560K, • MIL-DTL-32332, • MIL-A-46100D, • MIL-DTL-46100-E, • MIL-46177C, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY80, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY100, • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-80; • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA100, and • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Mod. Grade HSLA115, except that any cut-to-length plate certified to one of the above specifications, or to a military grade armor specification that references and incorporates one of the above specifications, will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other non-armor specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this order;

    (3) stainless steel plate, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (4) CTL plate meeting the requirements of ASTM A-829, Grade E 4340 that are over 305 mm in actual thickness;

    (5) Alloy forged and rolled CTL plate greater than or equal to 152.4 mm in actual thickness meeting each of the following requirements:

    (a) Electric furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed and having a chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.20, • Manganese 1.20-1.60, • Nickel not greater than 1.0, • Sulfur not greater than 0.007, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-2.5, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.80, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) With a Brinell hardness measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness falling within one of the following ranges:

    (i) 270-300 HBW, (ii) 290-320 HBW, or (iii) 320-350HBW;

    (c) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.0, C not exceeding 0.5, D not exceeding 1.5; and

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 2 mm flat bottom hole;

    (6) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, Ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.15, • Manganese 1.20-1.50, • Nickel not greater than 0.4, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.20-1.50, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.55, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.5, C not exceeding 1.0, D not exceeding 1.5;

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties:

    (i) With a Brinell hardness not more than 237 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 75ksi min and UTS 95ksi or more, Elongation of 18% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at −75 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 15 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens) and conforming to the requirements of NACE MR01-75; or

    (ii) With a Brinell hardness not less than 240 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 90 ksi min and UTS 110 ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 30% or more; having charpy V at −40 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 21 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 31 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301;

    (7) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.25-0.30, • Silicon not greater than 0.25, • Manganese not greater than 0.50, • Nickel 3.0-3.5, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-1.5, • Molybdenum 0.6-0.9, • Vanadium 0.08 to 0.12 • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm.

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), B not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h), C not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), and D not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h);

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties: A Brinell hardness not less than 350 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 145ksi or more and UTS 160ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at −40 degrees F in the transverse direction equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 25 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301.

    The products subject to the order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7225.40.1110, 7225.40.1180, 7225.40.3005, 7225.40.3050, 7226.20.0000, and 7226.91.5000.

    The products subject to the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7590, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7214.10.0000, 7214.30.0010, 7214.30.0080, 7214.91.0015, 7214.91.0060, 7214.91.0090, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.40.5110, 7225.40.5130, 7225.40.5160, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0010, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.0500, 7226.91.1530, 7226.91.1560, 7226.91.2530, 7226.91.2560, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0180.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    (B) Scope of the Order for CTL Plate From Korea

    The products covered by this order are certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances (cut-to-length plate). Subject merchandise includes plate that is produced by being cut-to-length from coils or from other discrete length plate and plate that is rolled or forged into a discrete length. The products covered include (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are not in coils and without patterns in relief), and (2) hot-rolled or forged flat steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are not in coils, whether or not with patterns in relief. The covered products described above may be rectangular, square, circular or other shapes and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges).

    For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above, the following rules apply:

    (1) except where otherwise stated where the nominal and actual thickness or width measurements vary, a product from a given subject country is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above unless the product is already covered by an order existing on that specific country (i.e., Certain Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for Australia, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 67962 (October 3, 2016), and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this order are products in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    Subject merchandise includes cut-to-length plate that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to pickling, oiling, levelling, annealing, tempering, temper rolling, skin passing, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, beveling, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if performed in the country of manufacture of the cut-to-length plate.

    All products that meet the written physical description, are within the scope of this order unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this order:

    (1) products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;

    (2) military grade armor plate certified to one of the following specifications or to a specification that references and incorporates one of the following specifications:

    • MIL-A-12560, • MIL-DTL-12560H, • MIL-DTL-12560J, • MIL-DTL-12560K, • MIL-DTL-32332, • MIL-A-46100D, • MIL-DTL-46100-E, • MIL-46177C, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY80, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY100, • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-80; • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA100, and • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Mod. Grade HSLA115, except that any cut-to-length plate certified to one of the above specifications, or to a military grade armor specification that references and incorporates one of the above specifications, will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other non-armor specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this order;

    (3) stainless steel plate, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (4) CTL plate meeting the requirements of ASTM A-829, Grade E 4340 that are over 305 mm in actual thickness;

    (5) Alloy forged and rolled CTL plate greater than or equal to 152.4 mm in actual thickness meeting each of the following requirements:

    (a) Electric furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed and having a chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.20, • Manganese 1.20-1.60, • Nickel not greater than 1.0, • Sulfur not greater than 0.007, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-2.5, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.80, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) With a Brinell hardness measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness falling within one of the following ranges:

    (i) 270-300 HBW, (ii) 290-320 HBW, or (iii) 320-350HBW;

    (c) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.0, C not exceeding 0.5, D not exceeding 1.5; and

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 2 mm flat bottom hole;

    (6) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, Ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.15, • Manganese 1.20-1.50, • Nickel not greater than 0.4, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.20-1.50, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.55, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.5, C not exceeding 1.0, D not exceeding 1.5;

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties:

    (i) With a Brinell hardness not more than 237 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 75ksi min and UTS 95ksi or more, Elongation of 18% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at -75 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 15 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens) and conforming to the requirements of NACE MR01-75; or

    (ii) With a Brinell hardness not less than 240 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 90 ksi min and UTS 110 ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 30% or more; having charpy V at -40 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 21 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 31 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301;

    (7) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.25-0.30, • Silicon not greater than 0.25, • Manganese not greater than 0.50, • Nickel 3.0-3.5, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-1.5, • Molybdenum 0.6-0.9, • Vanadium 0.08 to 0.12 • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm.

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), B not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h), C not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), and D not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h);

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties: A Brinell hardness not less than 350 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 145ksi or more and UTS 160ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at -40 degrees F in the transverse direction equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 25 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301.

    At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products from Korea. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Korea, 64 FR 73,196 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 29, 1999), as amended, 65 FR 6,585 (Dep't Commerce Feb 10, 2000) (1999 Korea AD Order). The scope of the antidumping duty order with regard to cut-to-length plate from Korea covers only (1) subject cut-to-length plate not within the physical description of cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate in the 1999 Korea AD Order, regardless of producer or exporter; and (2) cut-to-length plate produced and/or exported by those companies that were excluded or revoked from the 1999 Korea AD Order as of April 8, 2016. The only revoked or excluded company is Pohang Iron and Steel Company, also known as POSCO.

    The products subject to the order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7225.40.1110, 7225.40.1180, 7225.40.3005, 7225.40.3050, 7226.20.0000, and 7226.91.5000.

    The products subject to the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7590, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7214.10.0000, 7214.30.0010, 7214.30.0080, 7214.91.0015, 7214.91.0060, 7214.91.0090, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.40.5110, 7225.40.5130, 7225.40.5160, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0010, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.0500, 7226.91.1530, 7226.91.1560, 7226.91.2530, 7226.91.2560, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0180.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    (C) Scope of the Order for CTL Plate From Japan

    The products covered by this order are certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances (cut-to-length plate). Subject merchandise includes plate that is produced by being cut-to-length from coils or from other discrete length plate and plate that is rolled or forged into a discrete length. The products covered include (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are not in coils and without patterns in relief), and (2) hot-rolled or forged flat steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are not in coils, whether or not with patterns in relief. The covered products described above may be rectangular, square, circular or other shapes and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges).

    For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above, the following rules apply:

    (1) except where otherwise stated where the nominal and actual thickness or width measurements vary, a product from a given subject country is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above unless the product is already covered by an order existing on that specific country (i.e., Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for Australia, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 67962 (October 3, 2016), and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this order are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    Subject merchandise includes cut-to-length plate that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to pickling, oiling, levelling, annealing, tempering, temper rolling, skin passing, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, beveling, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if performed in the country of manufacture of the cut-to-length plate.

    All products that meet the written physical description, are within the scope of this order unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this order:

    (1) products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;

    (2) military grade armor plate certified to one of the following specifications or to a specification that references and incorporates one of the following specifications:

    • MIL-A-12560, • MIL-DTL-12560H, • MIL-DTL-12560J, • MIL-DTL-12560K, • MIL-DTL-32332, • MIL-A-46100D, • MIL-DTL-46100-E, • MIL-46177C, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY80, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY100, • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-80; • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA100, and • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Mod. Grade HSLA115, except that any cut-to-length plate certified to one of the above specifications, or to a military grade armor specification that references and incorporates one of the above specifications, will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other non-armor specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this order;

    (3) stainless steel plate, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (4) CTL plate meeting the requirements of ASTM A-829, Grade E 4340 that are over 305 mm in actual thickness;

    (5) Alloy forged and rolled CTL plate greater than or equal to 152.4 mm in actual thickness meeting each of the following requirements:

    (a) Electric furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed and having a chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.20, • Manganese 1.20-1.60, • Nickel not greater than 1.0, • Sulfur not greater than 0.007, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-2.5, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.80, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) With a Brinell hardness measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness falling within one of the following ranges:

    (i) 270-300 HBW, (ii) 290-320 HBW, or (iii) 320-350HBW;

    (c) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.0, C not exceeding 0.5, D not exceeding 1.5; and

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 2 mm flat bottom hole;

    (6) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, Ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.15, • Manganese 1.20-1.50, • Nickel not greater than 0.4, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.20-1.50, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.55, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.5, C not exceeding 1.0, D not exceeding 1.5;

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties:

    (i) With a Brinell hardness not more than 237 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 75ksi min and UTS 95ksi or more, Elongation of 18% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at -75 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 15 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens) and conforming to the requirements of NACE MR01-75; or

    (ii) With a Brinell hardness not less than 240 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 90 ksi min and UTS 110 ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 30% or more; having charpy V at -40 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 21 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 31 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301;

    (7) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.25-0.30, • Silicon not greater than 0.25, • Manganese not greater than 0.50, • Nickel 3.0-3.5, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-1.5, • Molybdenum 0.6-0.9, • Vanadium 0.08 to 0.12 • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm.

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), B not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h), C not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), and D not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h);

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties: A Brinell hardness not less than 350 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 145ksi or more and UTS 160ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at -40 degrees F in the transverse direction equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 25 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301.

    The products subject to the order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7225.40.1110, 7225.40.1180, 7225.40.3005, 7225.40.3050, 7226.20.0000, and 7226.91.5000.

    The products subject to the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7590, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7214.10.0000, 7214.30.0010, 7214.30.0080, 7214.91.0015, 7214.91.0060, 7214.91.0090, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.40.5110, 7225.40.5130, 7225.40.5160, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0010, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.0500, 7226.91.1530, 7226.91.1560, 7226.91.2530, 7226.91.2560, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0180.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    (D) Scope of the Order for CTL Plate From Taiwan

    The products covered by this order are certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances (cut-to-length plate). Subject merchandise includes plate that is produced by being cut-to-length from coils or from other discrete length plate and plate that is rolled or forged into a discrete length. The products covered include (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are not in coils and without patterns in relief), and (2) hot-rolled or forged flat steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are not in coils, whether or not with patterns in relief. The covered products described above may be rectangular, square, circular or other shapes and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges).

    For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above, the following rules apply:

    (1) except where otherwise stated where the nominal and actual thickness or width measurements vary, a product from a given subject country is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above unless the product is already covered by an order existing on that specific country (i.e. Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Taiwan, 66 FR 59563 (November 29, 2001)); and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this order are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    Subject merchandise includes cut-to-length plate that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to pickling, oiling, levelling, annealing, tempering, temper rolling, skin passing, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, beveling, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if performed in the country of manufacture of the cut-to-length plate.

    All products that meet the written physical description, are within the scope of this order unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this order:

    (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;

    (2) military grade armor plate certified to one of the following specifications or to a specification that references and incorporates one of the following specifications:

    • MIL-A-12560, • MIL-DTL-12560H, • MIL-DTL-12560J, • MIL-DTL-12560K, • MIL-DTL-32332, • MIL-A-46100D, • MIL-DTL-46100-E, • MIL-46177C, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY80, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY100, • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-80; • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA100, and • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Mod. Grade HSLA115, except that any cut-to-length plate certified to one of the above specifications, or to a military grade armor specification that references and incorporates one of the above specifications, will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other non-armor specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this order;

    (3) stainless steel plate, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (4) CTL plate meeting the requirements of ASTM A-829, Grade E 4340 that are over 305 mm in actual thickness;

    (5) Alloy forged and rolled CTL plate greater than or equal to 152.4 mm in actual thickness meeting each of the following requirements:

    (a) Electric furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed and having a chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.20, • Manganese 1.20-1.60, • Nickel not greater than 1.0, • Sulfur not greater than 0.007, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-2.5, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.80, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) With a Brinell hardness measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness falling within one of the following ranges:

    (i) 270-300 HBW, (ii) 290-320 HBW, or (iii) 320-350HBW;

    (c) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.0, C not exceeding 0.5, D not exceeding 1.5; and

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 2 mm flat bottom hole;

    (6) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, Ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.15, • Manganese 1.20-1.50, • Nickel not greater than 0.4, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.20-1.50, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.55, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.5, C not exceeding 1.0, D not exceeding 1.5;

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties:

    (i) With a Brinell hardness not more than 237 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 75ksi min and UTS 95ksi or more, Elongation of 18% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at −75 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 15 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens) and conforming to the requirements of NACE MR01-75; or

    (ii) With a Brinell hardness not less than 240 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 90 ksi min and UTS 110 ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 30% or more; having charpy V at −40 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 21 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 31 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301;

    (7) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.25-0.30, • Silicon not greater than 0.25, • Manganese not greater than 0.50, • Nickel 3.0-3.5, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-1.5, • Molybdenum 0.6-0.9, • Vanadium 0.08 to 0.12 • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm.

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), B not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h), C not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), and D not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h);

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties: A Brinell hardness not less than 350 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 145ksi or more and UTS 160ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at −40 degrees F in the transverse direction equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 25 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301.

    The products subject to the order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7225.40.1110, 7225.40.1180, 7225.40.3005, 7225.40.3050, 7226.20.0000, and 7226.91.5000.

    The products subject to the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7590, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7214.10.0000, 7214.30.0010, 7214.30.0080, 7214.91.0015, 7214.91.0060, 7214.91.0090, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.40.5110, 7225.40.5130, 7225.40.5160, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0010, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.0500, 7226.91.1530, 7226.91.1560, 7226.91.2530, 7226.91.2560, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0180.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10757 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-888] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From the Republic of Korea: Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).

    DATES:

    May 25, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813 or John Corrigan (202) 482-7438, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on April 4, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the CVD investigation of CTL plate from Korea.1 On May 18, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determination, pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of CTL plate from Korea.2

    1See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, 82 FR 16341 (April 4, 2017) (Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    2See Letter from ITC concerning Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, USITC Investigation Nos. 701-TA-561 and 731-TA-1317-1318, 1321-1325, and 1327 (Final), USITC Publication 701-560 (May 2017).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is CTL plate from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Appendix I.

    Countervailing Duty Order

    As stated above, on May 18, 2017, in accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i), and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its determination that the industry in the United States producing CTL plate is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of CTL plate from Korea.3 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this CVD order.

    3Id.

    Because the Department's preliminary determination in the underlying investigation was negative, we did not instruct U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of CTL plate from Korea.4 The Department's final determination was affirmative, and therefore, we directed CBP to suspend liquidation.5 Therefore, we will direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of CTL plate entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 4, 2017, the date on which the Department published its Final Determination in the Federal Register.

    4See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 81 FR 63168 (September 14, 2016) and accompanying Preliminary Determination Memorandum.

    5See Final Determination, 82 FR at 16342.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of CTL plate from Korea, effective on the date of publication of the Department's notice of final determination in the Federal Register. We will also direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, pursuant to 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated below. CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the subsidy rates listed below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The “all-others” rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

    Subsidy Rates

    The final subsidy rates are as follows:

    Producer/exporter Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • POSCO 4.31 All Others 4.31
    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the CVD order with respect to CTL plate from Korea pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties may find a list of CVD orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances (cut-to-length plate). Subject merchandise includes plate that is produced by being cut-to-length from coils or from other discrete length plate and plate that is rolled or forged into a discrete length. The products covered include (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are not in coils and without patterns in relief), and (2) hot-rolled or forged flat steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are not in coils, whether or not with patterns in relief. The covered products described above may be rectangular, square, circular or other shapes and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges).

    For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above, the following rules apply:

    (1) Except where otherwise stated where the nominal and actual thickness or width measurements vary, a product from a given subject country is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above unless the product is already covered by an order existing on that specific country (i.e., Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil and the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Orders, 81 FR 67960 (October 3, 2016)); and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    Subject merchandise includes cut-to-length plate that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to pickling, oiling, levelling, annealing, tempering, temper rolling, skin passing, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, beveling, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cut-to-length plate.

    All products that meet the written physical description, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this investigation:

    (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;

    (2) military grade armor plate certified to one of the following specifications or to a specification that references and incorporates one of the following specifications:

    • MIL-A-12560, • MIL-DTL-12560H, • MIL-DTL-12560J, • MIL-DTL-12560K, • MIL-DTL-32332, • MIL-A-46100D, • MIL-DTL-46100-E, • MIL-46177C, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY80, • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY100, • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-80; • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY100, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA80, • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA100, and • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Mod. Grade HSLA115, except that any cut-to-length plate certified to one of the above specifications, or to a military grade armor specification that references and incorporates one of the above specifications, will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other non-armor specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this investigation;

    (3) stainless steel plate, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (4) CTL plate meeting the requirements of ASTM A-829, Grade E 4340 that are over 305 mm in actual thickness;

    (5) Alloy forged and rolled CTL plate greater than or equal to 152.4 mm in actual thickness meeting each of the following requirements:

    (a) Electric furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed and having a chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.20, • Manganese 1.20-1.60, • Nickel not greater than 1.0, • Sulfur not greater than 0.007, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-2.5, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.80, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) With a Brinell hardness measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness falling within one of the following ranges:

    (i) 270-300 HBW, (ii) 290-320 HBW, or (iii) 320-350HBW;

    (c) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.0, C not exceeding 0.5, D not exceeding 1.5; and

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 2 mm flat bottom hole;

    (6) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, Ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28, • Silicon 0.05-0.15, • Manganese 1.20-1.50, • Nickel not greater than 0.4, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.20-1.50, • Molybdenum 0.35-0.55, • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.5, C not exceeding 1.0, D not exceeding 1.5;

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties:

    (i) With a Brinell hardness not more than 237 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 75ksi min and UTS 95ksi or more, Elongation of 18% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at −75 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 15 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens) and conforming to the requirements of NACE MR01-75; or

    (ii) With a Brinell hardness not less than 240 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 90 ksi min and UTS 110 ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 30% or more; having charpy V at −40 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 21 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 31 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301;

    (7) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.25-0.30, • Silicon not greater than 0.25, • Manganese not greater than 0.50, • Nickel 3.0-3.5, • Sulfur not greater than 0.010, • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020, • Chromium 1.0-1.5, • Molybdenum 0.6-0.9, • Vanadium 0.08 to 0.12 • Boron 0.002-0.004, • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm, • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm.

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), B not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h), C not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), and D not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h);

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties: A Brinell hardness not less than 350 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 145ksi or more and UTS 160ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at −40 degrees F in the transverse direction equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 25 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301.

    At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Korea. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 73,176 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 29, 1999), as amended, 65 FR 6,587 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 10, 2000) (1999 Korea CVD Order). The scope of the countervailing duty investigation with regard to cut-to-length plate from Korea covers only (1) subject cut-to-length plate not within the physical description of cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate in the 1999 Korea CVD Order regardless of producer or exporter, and (2) cut-to-length plate produced and/or exported by those companies that were excluded or revoked from the 1999 Korea CVD Order as of April 8, 2016. The only revoked or excluded company is Pohang Iron and Steel Company, also known as POSCO.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7225.40.1110, 7225.40.1180, 7225.40.3005, 7225.40.3050, 7226.20.0000, and 7226.91.5000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7590, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7214.10.0000, 7214.30.0010, 7214.30.0080, 7214.91.0015, 7214.91.0060, 7214.91.0090, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.40.5110, 7225.40.5130, 7225.40.5160, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0010, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.0500, 7226.91.1530, 7226.91.1560, 7226.91.2530, 7226.91.2560, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0180.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10756 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-817] Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) for the period of review (POR), September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective May 25, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2924.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 8, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Vietnam for the period of September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016.1 On September 30, 2016, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from the petitioners to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Vietnam manufactured or exported by Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Hot Rolling Pipe Co., Ltd., SeAH Steel Corporation, SeAH Steel VINA Corporation, and Vina One Steel Manufacturing.2

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 62096 (September 8, 2016).

    2See Letter from Maverick Tube Corporation and United States Steel Corporation (petitioners) to the Secretary, Re: Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Request for Administrative Review, dated September 30, 2016.

    On November 9, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order for Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Hot Rolling Pipe Co., Ltd., SeAH Steel Corporation, SeAH Steel VINA Corporation, and Vina One Steel Manufacturing.3 On February 7, 2017, the petitioners timely withdrew their request for an administrative review for all companies under review.4

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 78778 (November 9, 2016).

    4See Letter from the petitioners to the Secretary, Re: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Vietnam: Withdrawal of Review Request, dated February 7, 2017.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioners withdrew their request within the 90-day deadline. No other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. Therefore, in response to the timely withdrawal of the review request, the Department is rescinding in its entirety the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Vietnam.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers whose entries will be liquidated, as a result of this rescission, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10726 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-552-813] Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective May 25, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 10, 2017, based on a timely request for review by M&B Metal Products Company, Inc. (the petitioner),1 the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam covering the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.2 The review covers 66 companies. On May 9, 2017, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review on all 66 companies listed in the Initiation Notice. 3 No other party requested a review of these producers and/or exporters of subject merchandise.

    1See Letter from M&B Metal Products Company, Inc., “Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Vietnam: Request for Fourth Administrative Review,” dated February 17, 2017.

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188 (April 10, 2017) (Initiation Notice). The Department inadvertently listed the period of review as January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, in the Initiation Notice.

    3See Letter from the petitioner, “Fourth Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Vietnam—Petitioner's Withdrawal of Review Request,” dated May 9, 2017.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioner timely withdrew its request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the countervailing duty order. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed countervailing duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 18, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10725 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF454 Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; record of decision.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), notice is hereby given that the Deepwater Horizon Federal and State natural resource trustee agencies for the Alabama Trustee Implementation Group (Alabama TIG) have issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Alabama Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan I and Final Environmental Impact Statement: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities (Final RP/EIS). The ROD sets forth the basis for the Alabama TIG's decision to select Alternatives 1: Gulf State Park Lodge and Associated Public Access Amenities Project, 2: Fort Morgan Pier Rehabilitation, 5: Laguna Cove Little Lagoon Natural Resource Protection, 6: Bayfront Park Restoration and Improvement [E & D only], 7: Dauphin Island Eco-Tourism and Environmental Education Area, and 9: Mid-Island Parks and Public Beach Improvements [Parcels B & C].

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: You may download the ROD at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov. Alternatively, you may request a CD of the ROD (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may also view the document at any of the public facilities listed at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    • NOAA—Dan Van Nostrand, [email protected]

    • AL—Amy Hunter, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 6, 2016, the Alabama TIG initiated a 30-day formal scoping and public comment period for this RP/EIS (81 FR 44007-44008) through a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare a RP/EIS, and to Conduct Scoping. The Alabama TIG conducted the scoping in accordance with OPA (15 CFR 990.14(d)), NEPA (40 CFR 1501.7), and State authorities. That NOI requested public input to identify restoration approaches and restoration projects that could be used to compensate the public for lost recreational use opportunities in Alabama caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Notice of availability of the Draft RP/EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2016 (81 FR 91138). The Draft RP/EIS provided the Alabama TIG's analysis of projects to address lost recreational shoreline use under both OPA and NEPA and identified the projects that were proposed as preferred for implementation. The Alabama TIG provided the public with 45 days to review and comment on the Draft RP/EIS. The Alabama TIG also held public meetings in Dauphin Island, AL, and Gulf Shores, AL, to facilitate public understanding of the document and provide opportunity for public comment. The Alabama TIG actively solicited public input through a variety of mechanisms, including convening public meetings, distributing electronic communications, and using the Trustee-wide public Web site and database to share information and receive public input. The Alabama TIG considered the public comments received, which informed the Alabama TIG's analysis of alternatives in the Final RP/EIS. A summary of the public comments received and the Alabama TIG's responses to those comments are addressed in Chapter 9 of the Final RP/EIS and all correspondence received are provided Appendix B.

    In the Final RP/EIS, the Alabama TIG presented to the public its plan for providing for compensation for lost recreational shoreline use in Alabama. The Final RP/EIS presented ten individual restoration alternatives, including a no action alternative, evaluated in accordance with OPA and NEPA. The ten alternatives under the Final RP/EIS are as follows:

    Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative): Gulf State Park Lodge and Associated Public Access Amenities

    Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative): Fort Morgan Pier Rehabilitation

    Alternative 3: Fort Morgan Peninsula Public Access Improvements

    Alternative 4: Gulf Highlands Land Acquisition and Improvements

    Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Laguna Cove Little Lagoon Natural Resource Protection

    Alternative 6 (Preferred Alternative): Bayfront Park Restoration and Improvements

    Alternative 7 (Preferred Alternative): Dauphin Island Eco-Tourism and Environmental Education Area

    Alternative 8: Mid-Island Parks and Public Beach Improvements (Parcels A, B, and C)

    Alternative 9: (Preferred Alternative): Mid-Island Parks and Public Beach Improvements (Parcels B and C)

    Alternative 10: No Action/Natural Recovery

    A Notice of Availability of the Final RP/EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2017 (82 FR 17975). In the Final RP/EIS, the Alabama TIG presented its analysis of ten restoration alternatives (including the no action alternative) for addressing the loss of recreational shoreline use in Alabama as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the selection of six of these alternatives for implementation.

    As documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) signed on May 16, 2017, the Alabama TIG has: Reviewed the injury to natural resources and services caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident as outlined in the “Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (PDARP) and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)”, specifically the injury to recreational shoreline use in Alabama; analyzed alternatives to restore that injury; considered environmental impacts associated with the restoration alternatives, including the extent to which any adverse impacts could be mitigated; considered public and agency comments; and considered the funding allocations required for restoration. Based on these considerations, the ROD presents the Alabama TIG's decision to select Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for implementation. The AL TIG also concludes that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternatives selected have been adopted, and, where consultations are currently incomplete, the AL TIG will commit to additional minimization measures in forthcoming consultations.

    Administrative Record

    The documents included in the Administrative Record can be viewed electronically at the following location: http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord.

    The DWH Trustees opened a publicly available Administrative Record for the NRDA for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including restoration planning activities, concurrently with publication of the 2011 Notice of Intent to Begin Restoration Scoping and Prepare a Gulf Spill Restoration Planning PEIS (pursuant to 15 CFR 990.45). The Administrative Record includes the relevant administrative records since its date of inception. This Administrative Record is actively maintained and available for public review, and includes the administrative record for the RP/EIS.

    Authority:

    The authority of this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), the implementing NRDA regulations found at 15 CFR part 990, and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Carrie Selberg, Deputy Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10708 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF443 Meeting of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee's (MAFAC's) Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force (CBP Task Force). The CBP Task Force will discuss the issues outlined in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 27, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. and on June 28, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Wenatchee Convention Center at the Stanley Civic Center, 121 North Wenatchee Avenue, Wenatchee, WA 98801.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Cheney; NFMS West Coast Region (503) 231-6730; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC's CBP Task Force. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The complete MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/. The CBP Task Force reports to MAFAC and is being convened to discuss and develop recommendations for long-term goals to meet Columbia Basin salmon recovery, conservation needs, and harvest opportunities. These goals will be developed in the context of habitat capacity and other factors that affect salmon mortality. More information is available at the CBP Task Force Web page: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/columbia_river/index.html.

    Matters To Be Considered

    The meeting time and agenda are subject to change. Updated information will be available on the CBP Task Force Web page above.

    The meeting is convened to conduct the work of the CBP Task Force. Meeting topics include developing principles for quantitative goal setting, progress on applying the analytical framework to example species, and updates to the work plan. The meeting is open to the public as observers, and a public comment period will be provided on June 28, 2017, from 11:30 a.m.-12 p.m. to accept public input, limited to the time available.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Katherine Cheney; 503-231-6730, by June 12, 2017.

    Dated: May 19, 2017 Jennifer Lukens, Director for the Office of Policy, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10732 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army, independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the Committee's advice and recommendations. The Committee is comprised of no more than nine (9) members. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army appoints no more than seven (7) of these members. The purpose of this notice is to solicit nominations from a wide range of highly qualified persons to be considered for appointment to the Committee. Nominees may be appointed as members of the Committee and its sub-committees for terms of service ranging from one to four years. This notice solicits nominations to fill Committee membership vacancies that may occur through October 30, 2017. Nominees must be preeminent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise.

    DATES:

    All nominations must be received (see ADDRESSES) no later than August 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit a resume for consideration by the Department of the Army to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer at the following address: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, ATTN: Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (Ms. Yates), Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Renea C. Yates, Designated Federal Officer, by email at [email protected] or by telephone 877-907-8585.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery was established pursuant to Title 10, United States Code Section 4723. The selection, service and appointment of members of the Committee are publicized in the Committee Charter, available on the Arlington National Cemetery Web site http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Advisory-Committee-on-Arlington-National-Cemetery/Charter. The substance of the provisions of the Charter is as follows:

    a. Selection. The Committee Charter provides that the Committee shall be comprised of no more than nine members, all of whom are preeminent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise. Of these, no more than seven members are nominated by the Secretary of the Army.

    By direction of the Secretary of the Army, all resumes submitted in response to this notice will be presented to and reviewed by a panel of three senior Army leaders. Potential nominees shall be prioritized after review and consideration of their resumes for: Demonstrated technical/professional expertise; preeminence in a field(s) of interest or expertise; potential contribution to membership balance in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed; potential organizational and financial conflicts of interest; commitment to our Nation's veterans and their families; and published points of view relevant to the objectives of the Committee. The panel will provide the DFO with a prioritized list of potential nominees for consideration by the Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries, in making an initial recommendation to the Secretary of the Army. The Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries; the Secretary of the Army; and the Secretary of Defense are not limited or bound by the recommendations of the Army senior leader panel. Sources in addition to this Federal Register notice may be utilized in the solicitation and selection of nominations.

    b. Service. The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of a Committee member for a one-to-four year term of service; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve on the Committee or authorized subcommittee for more than two consecutive terms of service. The Secretary of the Army shall designate the Committee Chair from the total Advisory Committee membership. The Committee meets at the call of the DFO, in consultation with the Committee Chair. It is estimated that the Committee meets four times per year.

    c. Appointment. The operations of the Committee and the appointment of members are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended) and departmental implementing regulations, including Department of Defense Instruction 5105.04, Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committee Management Program, available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510504p.pdf. Appointed members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees shall be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority of Title 5, United States Code Section 3109 and shall serve as special government employees. Committee members appointed as special government employees shall serve without compensation except that travel and per diem expenses associated with official Committee activities are reimbursable.

    Additional information about the Committee is available on the Internet at: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Advisory-Committee-on-Arlington-National-Cemetery/Charter.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10716 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Federal advisory committee meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, June 14 and 15, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link: http://www.pfpa.mil/access.html.

    The panel will also hold a teleconference meeting with the same agenda to prepare for future meetings from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, June 21, 2017. Teleconference and direct connect information will be provided by the Designated Federal Officer and support staff at the contact information in this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting room will be displayed on the information screen for both days. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LTC Andrew Lunoff, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3090 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3090, email: [email protected], phone: 571-256-9004 or Peter Nash, email: [email protected], phone: 703-693-5111.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Meetings: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Government-Industry Advisory Panel will review sections 2320 and 2321 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), regarding rights in technical data and the validation of proprietary data restrictions and the regulations implementing such sections, for the purpose of ensuring that such statutory and regulatory requirements are best structured to serve the interest of the taxpayers and the national defense. The scope of the panel is as follows: (1) Ensuring that the Department of Defense (DoD) does not pay more than once for the same work, (2) Ensuring that the DoD contractors are appropriately rewarded for their innovation and invention, (3) Providing for cost-effective reprocurement, sustainment, modification, and upgrades to the DoD systems, (4) Encouraging the private sector to invest in new products, technologies, and processes relevant to the missions of the DoD, and (5) Ensuring that the DoD has appropriate access to innovative products, technologies, and processes developed by the private sector for commercial use.

    Agenda: This will be the seventeenth meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel and continued recurring teleconference meetings. The panel will cover details of 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321, begin understanding the implementing regulations and detail the necessary groups within the private sector and government to provide supporting documentation for their review of these codes and regulations during follow-on meetings. Agenda items for this meeting will include the following: (1) Final review of tension point information papers; (2) Rewrite FY17 NDAA 2320 and 2321 language; (3) Review Report Framework and Format for Publishing; (4) Comment Adjudication & Planning for follow-on meeting.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the June 14-15 and 21 meetings will be available as requested or at the following site: https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=2561. It will also be distributed upon request.

    Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin upon publication of this meeting notice and end three business days (June 9) prior to the start of the meeting. All members of the public must contact LTC Lunoff or Mr. Nash at the phone number or email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements for Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees should arrive at the Pentagon's Visitor's Center, located near the Pentagon Metro Station's south exit and adjacent to the Pentagon Transit Center bus terminal with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 8:30 a.m. on June 14-15. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification of which one must be a pictured identification card. Government and military DoD CAC holders are not required to have an escort, but are still required to pass through the Visitor's Center to gain access to the Building. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access.

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, or Mr. Nash at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the panel until its next meeting. Please note that because the panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the panel's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described in this paragraph, will be allotted no more than five (5) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10707 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0070] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Report of Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0070. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 226-62, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tara Jordan, 202-245-7341.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Report of Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program.

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0009.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 51.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 689.

    Abstract: The Vending Facility Program authorized by the Randolph-Sheppard Act provides persons who are blind with remunerative employment and self-support through the operation of vending facilities on federal and other property. Under the Randolph Sheppard Program, state licensing agencies recruit, train, license and place individuals who are blind as operators of vending facilities (including cafeterias, snack bars, vending machines, etc.) located on federal and other properties. In statute at 20 U.S.C. 107a(6)(a), the Secretary of Education is directed through the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to conduct periodic evaluations of the programs authorized under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Additionally, section 107b(4) requires entities designated as the state licensing agency to make such reports in such form and containing such information as the Secretary may from time to time require. The information to be collected is a necessary component of the evaluation process and forms the basis for annual reporting. These data are also used to understand the distribution type and profitability of vending facilities throughout the country. Such information is useful in providing technical assistance to state licensing agencies and property managers. The Code of Federal Regulations, at 34 CFR 395.8, specifies that vending machine income received by the state from federal property managers can be distributed to blind vendors in an amount not to exceed the national average income for blind vendors. This amount is determined through data collected using RSA-15: Report of Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program. In addition, the collection of information ensures the provision and transparency of activities referenced in 34 CFR 395.12 related to disclosure of program and financial information.

    The following changes are found in the revised information collection (IC) RSA-15: Report of Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program. At the end of the reporting form, a text box was added for notes or explanations. The instructions were modified accordingly to accommodate these changes in the form and to clarify information.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10682 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0729; FRL-9956-51] Registration Review Proposed Interm Decisions for Aldicarb, Azoxystrobin, Bifenazate, Chlorpyrifos-methyl, Ethalfluralin, and Pirimiphos-methyl; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim decisions. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit II, 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: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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 pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit II.

    For general information on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit II.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim decisions.

    Table 1—Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions Being Issued Registration review case name
  • and number
  • Docket ID number Chemical review manager and contact information
    Aldicarb, Case 0140 EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0161 Susan Bartow, [email protected], (703) 603-0065. Azoxystrobin, Case 7020 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0835 Veronica Dutch, [email protected], (703) 308-8585. Bifenazate, Case 7609 EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0633 Garland Waleko, [email protected], (703) 308-8049 and Stephen Savage [email protected], (703) 347-0345. Chlorpyrifos-methyl, Case 8011 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0199 Matthew Manupella, [email protected], (703) 347-0411. Ethalfluralin, Case 2260 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0094 James Parker, [email protected], (703) 306-0469. Pirimiphos-methyl, Case 2535 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0056 Caitlin Newcamp, [email protected], (703) 347-0325.

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier documents related to the registration review case. For example, the review opened with a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the Preliminary Work Plan.

    The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of the pesticides included in the table in Unit II, as well as the Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk mitigation measures. These proposed interim registration review decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents.

    Following public comment, the Agency will issue interim or final registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the table in Unit II.

    The registration review program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's final rule to implement this program was issued in August 2006 and became effective in October 2006, and appears at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA) was amended and extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by PRIA in 2007, requires EPA to complete registration review decisions by October 1, 2022, for all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007.

    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the docket for the pesticides included in the table in Unit II. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and may provide a “Response to Comments Memorandum” in the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the effect that any comments had on the interim decision and provide the Agency's response to significant comments.

    Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 3, 2017. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10669 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0011; FRL-9958-19] Registration Review; Neonicotinoid Risk Assessments; Summary Response to Comments, and Updated Neonicotinoid Work Schedule; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of the aquatic ecological assessment for imidacloprid, the combined preliminary pollinator risk assessment for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and the draft bee assessment for dinotefuran, and opens a public comment period on these three assessment documents. This notice also announces the availability of EPA's Registration Review Update for Four Neonicotinoid Insecticides. The Registration Review Update describes the next steps and information needs for the Agency's registration review of the neonicotinoids. This notice also announces the availability of a summary document that responds to certain comments received on the Preliminary Pollinator Assessment for imidacloprid, issued in January 2016. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific knowledge.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interested provided in Table 1 of Unit III., 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: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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 pesticide specific information contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in Table 1 of Unit III.

    For general questions on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Table 1 of Unit III.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in Table 1 of Unit III pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

    III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registration for the pesticides listed in Table 1 to ensure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration, that is, that these chemicals can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.

    Table 1—Chemicals for Which Assessments are Being Made Available for Public Comment Registration review case name
  • and number
  • Docket ID number Chemical review manager and contact information
    Clothianidin 7620 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0865 Ricardo Jones, [email protected], 703-347-0493. Dinotefuran 7441 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0920 Steven Snyderman, [email protected], 703-347-0249. Imidacloprid 7605 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 Ricardo Jones, [email protected], 703-347-0493. Thiamethoxam 7614 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0581 Thomas Harty, [email protected], 703-347-0338.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's ecological assessments for the chemicals listed in Table 1. Such comments and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodology and assumptions applied to its draft risk assessments, such as its methodology for estimating colony-level risk to bees from exposure to bee bread. The Agency will then issue updated assessments, and address public comments.

    1. Other related information. Additional information on the registration review status of the chemicals listed in Table 1, as well as information on the Agency's registration review program and on its implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

    • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

    • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

    • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

    • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: February 2, 2017. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10755 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794; FRL-9956-99] Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human health and ecological risk assessments for the registration review of chlorethoxyfos and the draft human health risk assessments for the registration review of diazinon and phosmet, and opens a public comment period on these documents. Due a docketing error for the phosmet draft risk assessment issued in a previous Federal Register notice, this notice is announcing the availability of the phosmet in order to give the public a full opportunity for review and comment. The Agency in this Federal Register notice, is initiating a 60-day comment period for phosmet.

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and ecological risk assessments for the registration review of chlorethoxyfos and the draft human health risk assessments for the registration review of diazinon and phosmet for all uses of these pesticides. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review decision for chlorethoxyfos, diazinon, and phosmet. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794, 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: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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 pesticide specific information contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in Table 1 of Unit III.

    For general questions on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Table 1 of Unit III.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of chlorethoxyfos, diazinon, and phosmet pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

    III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registration for the pesticides listed in Table 1 to ensure that it continues to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, that these chemicals can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.

    Table 1—Chemicals for Which Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment Registration review case name
  • and number
  • Docket ID number Contact and contact information
    Chlorethoxyfos, 7410 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0843 Caitlin Newcamp, [email protected], 703-347-0325. Diazinon, 0238 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0351 Khue Nguyen, [email protected], 703-347-0248. Phosmet, 0242 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0316 Maria Piansay, piansay.mari[email protected], 703-308-8063.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and ecological risk assessments for the registration review of chlorethoxyfos and the draft human health risk assessments for registration review of diazinon and phosmet. Such comments and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions, as applied to a draft risk assessment. The Agency will consider all comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to a draft human health and/or ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments. In the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the revised risk assessment, if the revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern, the Agency may provide a comment period for the public to submit suggestions for mitigating the risk identified in the risk assessment before developing a proposed registration review decision on chlorethoxyfos, diazinon, and phosmet. The Agency is re-issuing phosmet draft risk assessment in this Federal Register notice, initiating a 60-day comment period for phosmet.

    1. Other related information. Additional information on the registration review status of the chemicals listed in Table 1 of Unit III, as well as information on the Agency's registration review program and on its implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

    • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

    • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English, and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

    • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

    • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: December 21, 2016. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. EDITORIAL NOTE:

    The Office of the Federal Register received this document on May 22, 2017.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10753 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0393; FRL-9952-83] Registration Review Interim Decisions; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decisions for 2-(Decylthio)ethanamine Hydrochloride, DTEA-HCl; Aliphatic Alcohols, C1-C5; Bentazon; Chlorfenapyr; Propoxur; Propoxycarbazone-sodium; Sodium Acifluorfen; and Thidiazuron. The Agency is also amending the interim registration review decision for Maleic Hydrazide. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in Table 1 of Unit II.

    For general information on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Table 1 of Unit II.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0393, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decisions for chemicals listed in Table 1.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has considered the chemicals listed in Table 1 in light of the FIFRA standard for registration. For the chemicals listed in Table 1, the Interim Decision documents in the docket describes the Agency's rationale for issuing a registration review interim decision for these pesticides.

    In addition to the interim registration review decision documents, the registration review docket for the chemicals listed in Table 1 also includes other relevant documents related to the registration review of these cases. The proposed interim registration review decisions were posted to the docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new information.

    Table 1—Decisions Being Issued or Amended Registration review case name
  • and number
  • Docket ID number Chemical review manager and contact information
    2-(Decylthio)ethanamine Hydrochloride, DTEA-HCl, 5029 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0336 SanYvette Williams, [email protected], 703-305-7702. Aliphatic Alcohols, C1-C5, 4003 EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0340 SanYvette Williams, [email protected], 703-305-7702. Bentazon, 0182 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0117 Moana Appleyard, [email protected], 703-308-8175. Chlorfenapyr, 7419 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0467 Margaret Hathaway, [email protected], 703-305-5076. Maleic Hydrazide, 0381 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0387 Ricardo Jones, [email protected], 703-347-0493. Propoxur, 2555 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0806 Brittany Pruitt, [email protected], 703-347-0289. Propoxycarbazone-sodium, 7264 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0095 Marianne Mannix, [email protected], 703-347-0275. Sodium Acifluorfen, 2605 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0135 Nathan Sell, [email protected], (703) 347-8020. Thidiazuron, 4092 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0381 Christina Motilall, [email protected], 703-603-0522.

    EPA addresses the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period in the discussion for each pesticide listed in Table 1. From the 60-day comment period, public comments received may or may not affect the Agency's interim decision.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for the chemicals listed in Table 1 will remain open until all actions required in the interim decision have been completed.

    Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation. Earlier documents related to the registration review of a pesticide are provided in the chemical specific dockets listed in Table 1.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10671 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794; FRL-9957-98] Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment(s), and Final Tetrachlorvinphos Occupational and Residential Exposure Risk Assessment, and the Agency's Decision To Rely on Data From Human Health Research; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human health and ecological risk assessments for the registration review of bromacil, cyprodinil, and propamocarb; the draft human health risk assessment for the registration review of cyphenothrin; and the draft ecological risk assessment for the registration review of 2, 4-D, and opens a public comment period on these documents. This notice also announces the availability of EPA's final occupational and residential exposure assessment for the registration review of tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) and EPA's explanation for relying on TCVP data from human research on TCVP exposure from pet collars. The TCVP draft risk assessments were published for a 60-day public comment period in the Federal Register of January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3128) (FRL-9940-81). Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration; that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and draft ecological risk assessments for the registration review of bromacil, cyprodinil, and propamocarb; the draft human health risk assessment for the registration review of cyphenothrin; the final occupational and residential exposure assessment for TCVP; and the draft ecological risk assessment for the registration review of 2, 4-D. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period for all pesticide cases named above (excluding TCVP), EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review decision for the pesticides identified above. Regarding TCVP, the EPA has published a revised human health and final occupational and residential exposure assessment in addition to response to comments and other support documents, which explain changes to the preliminary risk assessments and responds to substantive comments. Through the registration review program, the EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registrations are based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794, 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: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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 pesticide specific information contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in Tables 1 and II of Unit III.

    For general questions on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Tables 1 and II of Unit III.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in Tables 1 and II of Unit III pursuant to section 3(g) of the FIFRA and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

    III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registration for the pesticides listed in Tables 1 and 2 to ensure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, that these chemicals can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.

    Table 1—Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment Registration review case name
  • and number
  • Docket ID number Contact and contact information
    2,4-D 0073 EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0330 Brittany Pruitt, [email protected] (703) 347-0289. Bromacil 0041 EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0445 Steven Snyderman, [email protected] (703) 347-0249. Cyphenothrin 7412 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0842 Margaret Hathaway, [email protected] (703) 305-5076. Cyprodinil 7025 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1008 Leigh Rimmer, [email protected] (703) 347-0553. Propamocarb 3124 EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0662 Christina Scheltema, [email protected] (703) 308-2201.
    Table 2—Final Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment Being Made Available (No Public Comment Period) Registration review case name
  • and number
  • Docket ID number Contact and contact information
    Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) 0321 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316 James Parker, [email protected] (703) 306-0469.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and ecological risk assessments for the registration review of bromacil, cyprodinil, and propamocarb; the draft human health risk assessment for cyphenothrin; and the draft ecological risk assessment for the registration review of 2, 4-D. Such comments and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions, as applied to a draft risk assessment. The Agency will consider all comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to a draft human health and/or ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments. In the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the revised risk assessment, if the revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern, the Agency may provide a comment period for the public to submit suggestions for mitigating the risk identified in the revised risk assessment before developing a proposed registration review decision on the pesticides identified above.

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is also reviewing the pesticide registration for TCVP to ensure that it continues to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, that TCVP can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. TCVP is an organophosphate (OP) insecticide used to control fleas, ticks, flies, lice, and insect larvae on livestock and domestic animals and their premises. TCVP is also applied as a perimeter treatment. TCVP is formulated into dusts, pet collars, emulsifiable concentrates, feed additives (solid and liquid), feed blocks, wettable powders, pellets and granular products. This Federal Register notice is announcing that the EPA has published the final registration review TCVP occupational and residential exposure risk assessment for all TCVP uses.

    The final TCVP registration review occupational and residential exposure risk assessment incorporates several changes, including a reduction of the oral toxicological point of departure (POD) from 8.0 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) to 2.8 mg/kg/day; the use of human research data (Davis, M. et al.,) “Assessing Intermittent Pesticide Exposure from Flea Control Collars Containing the Organophosphorus Insecticide Tetrachlorvinphos” to assess residential post-application exposure; and an approach to account for the potential release of TCVP from pet collar products as a liquid and solid form concurrently.

    In addition to the final occupational and residential exposure assessment, the registration review docket for TCVP also includes other relevant documents related to the registration review of this case. The preliminary registration review assessments were previously posted to the published in the Federal Register of January 20, 2016 for a 60-day comment period, during which time the public was invited to submit comments or new information.

    During the 60-day comment period, comments were received from Bayer HealthCare (Bayer), The Hartz Mountain Corporation (Hartz), the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the general public. The EPA's response to comments on the registration review preliminary risk assessments can be assessed in the TCVP docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316) at www.regulations.gov.

    In compliance with EPA's rule for protection of human subjects, specifically 40 CFR 26.1706(d), EPA is hereby publishing its full explanation of the Agency's decision to rely on data from human research “Assessing Intermittent Pesticide Exposure From Flea Control Collars Containing the Organophosphorus Insecticide Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) by M. Keith Davis, J. Scott Boone, John E. Moran, John W. Tyler and Janice E. Chambers) on TCVP exposure from pet collars. Relying on this data is crucial to EPA's decision that more stringent regulatory restrictions are necessary to protect public health than could be justified without the data. EPA's full explanation can be found at regulations.gov in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316, and on OPP's Web page at https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/use-tetrachlorvinfos-exposure-data-human-research.

    1. Other related information. Additional information on the registration review status of the chemicals listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit III, as well as information on the Agency's registration review program and on its implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

    • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

    • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

    • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

    • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 13, 2017. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10754 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879; FRL-9961-76] Environmental Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    An Environmental Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) will be held on Wednesday, June 28, 2017. This Notice announces the location and time for the meeting and provides tentative agenda topics. The EMPM provides a public forum for EPA and its stakeholders to discuss current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for pesticide risk assessments in a regulatory context.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 28, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or before June 5, 2017.

    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South Building), First Floor Conference Center (S-1200), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Wente or Jessica Joyce, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-0001 and (703) 347-8191; fax number: (703) 305-0204; email address: [email protected] and [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting NAICS code 11.

    • Utilities NAICS code 22.

    • Professional, Scientific and Technical NAICS code 54.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background

    On a biannual interval, an Environmental Modeling Public Meeting is held for presentation and discussion of current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for risk assessment in a regulatory context. Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced through the “empmlist” forum on the LYRIS list server at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/.

    III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered Confidential Business Information (CBI). Requests to participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879, must be received on or before June 5, 2017.

    IV. Tentative Theme for the Meeting

    Subsurface Metabolism: Groundwater modeling conducted as part of the pesticide registration and re-evaluation processes typically assumes that biologically mediated metabolism does not occur at depths greater than 1 meter. The focus of this EMPM meeting concerns evidence of subsurface metabolism in groundwater, methods for measuring subsurface metabolism, and how to parameterize models to account for subsurface metabolism. As always, other timely topics beyond subsurface metabolism will be considered as time limits allow.

    Authority Code:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 20, 2017. Marietta Echeuerria, Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10760 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765; FRL-9963-10-ORD] Request for Nominations of Experts to the EPA Office of Research and Development's Board of Scientific Counselors AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking nominations for technical experts to serve on its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a federal advisory committee to the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Submission of nominations is preferred via the BOSC Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/bosc.

    DATES:

    Nominations should be submitted by June 30, 2017, per instructions below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public needing additional information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact Mr. Tom Tracy, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Mail Code 8104-R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-6518; via fax at: (202) 565-2911; or via email at: [email protected] General information concerning the BOSC can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/bosc.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The BOSC is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee that was established by the EPA to provide independent scientific and technical peer review, advice, consultation, and recommendations about ORD. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the BOSC conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations.

    The BOSC is comprised of an Executive Committee and five supporting subcommittees. The subcommittees focus on ORD's research programs: Air, Climate, and Energy Research Program; Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research Program and Human Health Risk Assessment Program; Homeland Security Research Program; Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program; and Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. Please visit https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-research-and-development-ord to learn more about these programs.

    Members of the BOSC are recognized experts in various scientific, engineering, and social science fields. EPA will consider nominees from industry, business, public and private research institutes or organizations, academia, government (federal, state, local, and tribal) and non-government organizations, and other relevant interest areas. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a period of three years and serve as special government employees. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

    Expertise Sought

    EPA is seeking nominations of nationally and internationally recognized scientists and engineers having experience and expertise in one or more of the following areas:

    • Atmospheric Science —aerosol chemistry —aerosol physical science —air quality modeling —atmospheric chemistry —atmospheric physics • Biology —biogeochemistry —cell biology —endocrinology (endocrine disruptors) —microbiology/molecular biology —pharmacokinetics —systems biology • Chemistry —analytical chemistry —combustion chemistry —environmental chemistry —green chemistry —physical chemistry —water chemistry —biogeochemistry • Climate Change/Global Change —adaption —modeling —variability —greenhouse gas technology —assessment • Ecology —ecosystem services —aquatic/systems ecology (freshwater, wetland, estuary, near-coastal) —hydrology/hydraulics (watershed modeling) —plant/forestry ecology —water resources —soil biogeochemistry — system ecology —landscape ecology —urban ecology • Engineering —biochemical engineering —bioenvironmental engineering —engineering (drinking water treatment, wastewater treatment, stormwater treatment and management, water reuse, water infrastructure) —chemical engineering —combustion engineering —environmental engineering (decontamination, clean-up, management) —industrial engineering —mechanical engineering • Information Science —information technology —computer/web-based tool development —information visualization —research communication —spatial analysis —uncertainty analysis • Nanotechnology/Emerging Materials (exposure and hazard characterization) • Public Health —children's health —community health —environmental health —epidemiology/molecular epidemiology • Exposure Science (human, ecological, chemical fate and transport, computational exposure, exposure modeling) • Risk Assessment (cumulative, mixtures, ecological, human health) • Nutrients (nutrient management/thresholds, best management practices, human/ecological health) • Cyanobacteria/Harmful Algal Blooms • Watershed Management (surface water, groundwater) • Sustainability —community/urban level planning and sustainability —industrial (industrial ecology, life cycle analysis, technology policy, systems engineering) —energy —water, energy and food nexus • Toxicology —computational toxicology (computational biology, genomics, proteomics, metabonomics, computational chemistry, high-throughput bioassays, informatics, bioinformatics, predictive toxicology) —ecotoxicology —developmental/reproductive toxicology —immunotoxicology —molecular toxicology —neurotoxicology —pulmonary/cardiovascular toxicology —carcinogenesis • Science Policy • Environmental Justice • Program Evaluation • Social Science —community disaster recovery and resiliency —economics (ecological economics, environmental, natural resources and agriculture) —socioeconomics —sociology —decision science • Behavioral Science —psychology —ecopsychology —environmental psychology —conservation psychology —social neuroscience —risk perception —risk/crisis communication —community decision making • Decision Science —decision analysis —value of information —decision support system Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations

    Any interested person or organization may nominate themselves or qualified individuals in the areas of expertise described above. Nominations should be submitted via the BOSC Web site (which is preferred over hard copy) at: https://www.epa.gov/bosc. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than July 21, 2017. To receive full consideration, nominations should include all of the information requested. EPA requests: Contact information about the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; committee preference; the nominee's curriculum vita and/or resume; and additional information that would be useful for considering the nomination such as background and qualifications (e.g., current position, educational background, expertise, research areas), experience relevant to one or more of ORD's research programs, service on other advisory committees and professional societies, and availability to participate as a member of the Executive Committee and/or Subcommittee. Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the BOSC Web site, should contact Mr. Tom Tracy, as indicated above in this notice.

    Selection Criteria

    The BOSC is a balanced and diverse expert committee. The committee and each of its subcommittees possess necessary domains of expertise, depth and breadth of knowledge, and diverse and balanced scientific perspectives. Nominations will be evaluated on the basis of several criteria including: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience; (b) availability to serve and willingness to commit time to the committee (approximately one to three meetings per year including both face-to-face meetings and teleconferences); (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; (e) skills working on committees and advisory panels; and (f) background and experiences that would contribute to the diversity of viewpoints on the Executive Committee or Subcommittee, e.g., workforce sector, geographical location, social, cultural, and educational backgrounds, and professional affiliations.

    The EPA's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows Government Officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA Federal Advisory Committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address, https://www.epa.gov/sap/confidential-financial-disclosure-form-environmental-protection-agency-special-government.

    Dated: May 18, 2017. Fred S. Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10672 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0774; FRL-9952-21] Registration Review Proposed Decisions for Boric Acid/Sodium Salts, Clethodim, Diquat Dibromide, Ethephon, Fenitrothion, Hexazinone, Hymexazol, Methoxyfenozide, Pronamide, and Trimedlure; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim decisions. For a list of the chemicals, please see Section II, Table 1. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit II., 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: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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 pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit II.

    For general information on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit II.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim decisions.

    Table 1—Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions Being Issued Registration review chemical name
  • and number
  • Docket ID number Chemical review manager and contact information
    Boric Acid/Sodium Salts, 0024 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0306 Moana Appleyard, [email protected], (703) 308-8175 and Sandra O'Neil, [email protected], (703) 347-0141. Clethodim, 7226 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0658 Bilin Basu, [email protected], (703) 347-0455. Diquat Dibromide, 0288 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0846 Bonnie Adler, [email protected], (703) 308-8523. Ethephon, 0382 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0098 Marquea D. King, [email protected], (703) 305-7432. Fenitrothion, 0445 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0172 Leigh Rimmer, [email protected], (703) 347-0553. Hexazinone, 0266 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0755 Bilin Basu, [email protected], (703) 347-0455. Hymexazol, 7016 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0127 Caitlin Newcamp, [email protected], (703) 347-0325. Methoxyfenozide, 7431 EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0663 Bonnie Adler, [email protected], (703) 308-8523. Pronamide, 0082 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0326 Wilhelmena Livingston, [email protected], (703) 308-8025. Trimedlure, 6045 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0616 Gina Burnett, [email protected], (703) 605-0513.

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier documents related to the registration review case. For example, the review opened with a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the Preliminary Work Plan.

    The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of the pesticides included in the table in Unit II, as well as the Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk mitigation measures. These proposed interim registration review decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents.

    Following public comment, the Agency will issue interim or final registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the table in Unit II.

    The registration review program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's final rule to implement this program was issued in August 2006 and became effective in October 2006, and appears at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA) was amended and extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by PRIA in 2007, requires EPA to complete registration review decisions by October 1, 2022, for all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007.

    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the docket for the pesticides included in the table in Unit II. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and may provide a “Response to Comments Memorandum” in the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the effect that any comments had on the interim decision and provide the Agency's response to significant comments.

    Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 13, 2016. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10670 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0338; FRL-9955-99] Registration Review Interim Decisions and Case Closures; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in Unit II. of this notice. In addition, this notice announces the closure of the registration review case for Disodium Cyanodithioimidocarbonate (DCDIC) (case 3065 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0723) and Decyl-Isononyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DIDAC) (case 5013 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0005) because all of the registrations in the U.S. have been canceled. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table of Unit II.

    For general information on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table of Unit II.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0338, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decisions for Antimycin, Busan 74, Flufenacet, Flurprimidol, Fosamine Ammonium, Glufosinate, Lithium Hypochlorite, and Tebufenozide.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has considered the chemicals listed in the following Table in light of the FIFRA standard for registration. The interim registration review decisions are supported by rationales included in the docket established for each chemical.

    In addition to the interim registration review decision documents, the registration review docket for the chemicals listed in the Table also includes other relevant documents related to the registration review of these cases. The proposed interim registration review decisions were posted to the docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new information.

    Table—Interim Decisions Being Issued Registration review case name
  • and number
  • Docket ID number Chemical review manager and contact information
    Antimycin A, Case 4121 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0480 Christina Sheltema, [email protected]; (703) 308-2201. Busan 74, also known as 2-hydroxypropyl methanethiolsulfonate; (HPMTS), Case 3033 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0241 Rachel Ricciardi, [email protected], (703) 347-0465. Flufenacet, Case 7245 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0863 Brian Kettl, [email protected], (703) 347-0535. Flurprimidol, Case 7000 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0630 Christina Motilall, [email protected], (703) 603-0522. Fosamine ammonium, Case 2355 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0215 James Parker, [email protected], (703) 306-0469. Glufosinate, Case 7224 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0190 Marquea D. King, [email protected] (703) 305-7432. Lithium Hypochlorite, Case 3084 EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0606 Sandra O'Neill, [email protected] (703) 347-0141. Tebufenozide, Case 7416 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0824 Christina Sheltema, [email protected]; (703) 308-2201.

    EPA addresses the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period for the proposed decisions in the discussion for each pesticide listed in the Table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were received may or may not affect the Agency's interim decision.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for the chemicals listed in the Table will remain open until all actions required in the interim decision have been completed.

    Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation. Earlier documents related to the registration review of these pesticides are provided in the chemical specific dockets listed in the Table.

    This document also announces the closure of the registration review case for Disodium Cyanodithioimidocarbonate (DCDIC) (case 3065 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0723) and Decyl-Isononyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DIDAC) (case 5013 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0005) because all of the registrations in the U.S. have been canceled.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 3, 2017. Yu-Ting Guilaran, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10668 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [Notice 2017-10] Filing Dates for the Alabama Senate Special Elections AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing dates for special election.

    SUMMARY:

    Alabama has scheduled special elections to fill the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There are three possible special elections, but only two may be necessary.

    Primary Election: August 15, 2017.

    Possible Runoff Election: September 26, 2017. In the event that one candidate does not achieve a majority vote in his/her party's Special Primary Election, the top two vote-getters will participate in a Special Runoff Election.

    General Election: December 12, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Principal Campaign Committees Special Primary Only

    All principal campaign committees of candidates only participating in the Alabama Special Primary shall file a Pre-Primary Report on August 3, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for the report).

    Special Primary and General Without Runoff

    If only two elections are held, all principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the Alabama Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a Pre-Primary Report on August 3, 2017; a Pre-General Report on November 30, 2017; and a Post-General Report on January 21, 2018. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).

    Special Primary and Runoff Elections

    If three elections are held, all principal campaign committees of candidates only participating in the Alabama Special Primary and Special Runoff Elections shall file a Pre-Primary Report on August 3, 2017; and a Pre-Runoff Report on September 14, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Special Primary, Runoff and General Elections

    All principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the Alabama Special Primary, Special Runoff and Special General Elections shall file a Pre-Primary Report on August 3, 2017; a Pre-Runoff Report on September 14, 2017; a Pre-General Report on November 30, 2017; and a Post-General Report on January 21, 2018. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).

    Unauthorized Committees (PACs and Party Committees)

    Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2017 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Alabama Special Primary, Special Runoff or Special General Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Since disclosing financial activity from two different calendar years on one report would conflict with the calendar year aggregation requirements stated in the Commission's disclosure rules, unauthorized committees that trigger the filing of the Post-General Report will be required to file this report on two separate forms. One form to cover 2017 activity, labeled as the Year-End Report; and the other form to cover only 2018 activity, labeled as the Post-General Report. Both forms must be filed by January 21, 2018.

    Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Alabama Special Primary, Special Runoff or Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

    Additional disclosure information in connection with the Alabama Special Elections may be found on the FEC Web site at http://www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.shtml.

    Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling Activity

    Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,900 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).

    b.

    Calendar Of Reporting Dates For Alabama Special Election Report Close of books 1 Reg./cert. &
  • overnight mailing
  • deadline
  • Filing deadline
    Campaign Committees Involved in Only the Special Primary (08/15/17) Must File: Pre-Primary 07/26/17 07/31/17 08/03/17 October Quarterly 09/30/17 10/15/17 2 10/15/17 Year-End 12/31/17 01/31/18 01/31/18 PACs and Party Committees not Filing Monthly Involved in Only the Special Primary (08/15/17) Must File: Mid-Year —WAIVED— Pre-Primary 07/26/17 07/31/17 08/03/17 Year-End 12/31/17 01/31/18 01/31/18 If Only Two Elections are Held, Campaign Committees Involved in Both the Special Primary (08/15/17) and Special General (12/12/17) Must File: Pre-Primary 07/26/17 07/31/17 08/03/17 October Quarterly 09/30/17 10/15/17 2 10/15/17 Pre-General 11/22/17 11/27/17 11/30/17 Post-General 01/01/18 01/21/18 2 01/21/18 Year-End —WAIVED— If Only Two Elections are Held, PACs and Party Committees not Filing Monthly Involved in Both the Special Primary (08/15/17) and Special General (12/12/17) Must File: Mid-Year —WAIVED— Pre-Primary 07/26/17 07/31/17 08/03/17 Pre-General 11/22/17 11/27/17 11/30/17 Post-General 01/01/18 01/21/18 2 01/21/18 Year-End —WAIVED— If Only Two Elections are Held, Campaign Committees Involved in Only the Special General (12/12/17) Must File: Pre-General 11/22/17 11/27/17 11/30/17 Post-General 01/01/18 01/21/18 2 01/21/18 Year-End —WAIVED— If Only Two Elections are Held, PACs and Party Committees not Filing Monthly Involved in Only the Special General (12/12/17) Must File: Pre-General 11/22/17 11/27/17 11/30/17 Post-General 01/01/18 01/21/18 2 01/21/18 Year-End —WAIVED— If Three Elections are Held, Campaign Committees Involved in Only the Special Primary (08/15/17) and Special Runoff (09/26/17) Must File: Pre-Primary 07/26/17 07/31/17 08/03/17 Pre-Runoff 09/06/17 09/11/17 09/14/17 October Quarterly 09/30/17 10/15/17 2 10/15/17 Year-End 12/31/17 01/31/18 01/31/18 If Three Elections are Held, PACs and Party Committees not Filing Monthly Involved in Only the Special Primary (08/15/17) and Special Runoff (09/26/17) Must File: Mid-Year —WAIVED— Pre-Primary 07/26/17 07/31/17 08/03/17 Pre-Runoff 09/06/17 09/11/17 09/14/17 Year-End 12/31/17 01/31/18 01/31/18 If Three Elections are Held, Campaign Committees not Filing Monthly Involved in Only the Special Runoff (09/26/17) Must File: Pre-Runoff 09/06/17 09/11/17 09/14/17 October Quarterly 09/30/17 10/15/17 2 10/15/17 Year-End 12/31/17 01/31/18 01/31/18 If Three Elections are Held, PACs and Party Committees not Filing Monthly Involved in Only the Special Runoff (09/26/17) Must File: Pre-Runoff 09/06/17 09/11/17 09/14/17 Year-End 12/31/17 01/31/18 01/31/18 Campaign Committees Involved in the Special Primary (08/15/17), Special Runoff (09/26/17) and Special General (12/12/17) Must File: Pre-Primary 07/26/17 07/31/17 08/03/17 Pre-Runoff 09/06/17 09/11/17 09/14/17 October Quarterly 09/30/17 10/15/17 2 10/15/17 Pre-General 11/22/17 11/27/17 11/30/17 Post-General 01/01/18 01/21/18 2 01/21/18 Year-End —WAIVED— PACs and Party Committees not Filing Monthly Involved in the Special Primary (08/15/17), Special Runoff (09/26/17) and Special General (12/12/17) Must File: Mid-Year —WAIVED— Pre-Primary 07/26/17 07/31/17 08/03/17 Pre-Runoff 09/06/17 09/11/17 09/14/17 Pre-General 11/22/17 11/27/17 11/30/17 Post-General 01/01/18 01/21/18 2 01/21/18 Year-End —WAIVED— If Three Elections are Held, Campaign Committees Involved in Only the Special General (12/12/17) Must File: Pre-General 11/22/17 11/27/17 11/30/17 Post-General 01/01/18 01/21/18 2 01/21/18 Year-End —WAIVED— If Three Elections are Held, PACs and Party Committees not Filing Monthly Involved in Only the Special General (12/12/17) Must File: Pre-General 11/22/17 11/27/17 11/30/17 Post-General 01/01/18 01/21/18 2 01/21/18 Year-End —WAIVED— 1 The reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered as a political committee up through the close of books for the first report due. 2 Notice that this filing deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday. Filing deadlines are not extended when they fall on nonworking days. Accordingly, reports filed by methods other than registered, certified or overnight mail must be received by close of business on the last business day before the deadline.
    Dated: April 26, 2017.

    On behalf of the Commission,

    Steven T. Walther, Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10722 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY [No. 2017-N-05] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice of submission of information collection for approval from Office of Management and Budget.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is seeking public comments concerning an information collection known as the “Monthly Survey of Rates and Terms on Conventional 1-Family Nonfarm Mortgage Loans (MIRS),” which has been assigned control number 2590-0004 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on July 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may submit comments on or before July 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `Monthly Survey of Rates and Terms on Conventional 1-Family Nonfarm Mortgage Loans (MIRS), (No. 2017-N-05)' ” by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: www.fhfa.gov/open-for-comment-or-input.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email to FHFA at [email protected] to ensure timely receipt by the agency.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219, ATTENTION: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: “Monthly Survey of Rates and Terms on Conventional 1-Family Nonfarm Mortgage Loans (MIRS), (No. 2017-N-05)”.

    We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at (202) 649-3804.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    D