Federal Register Vol. 82, No.103,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 103 (May 31, 2017)

Page Range24823-25202
FR Document

82_FR_103
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 24823 - Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 2017PDF
82 FR 24951 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 24944 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 24952 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
82 FR 25029 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 24981 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 24982 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 24982 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 24982 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 24976 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 25043 - 30-Day Notice of Intent To Seek Extension of Approval: Waybill SamplePDF
82 FR 24825 - Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasPDF
82 FR 24925 - Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous WastePDF
82 FR 24995 - Notification of a Public Meeting of the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis (Commission)PDF
82 FR 25016 - RG 5.28, “Evaluation of Shipper-Receiver Differences in the Transfer of Special Nuclear Material,” Revision 0 RG 5.49, “Internal Transfers of Special Nuclear Material,” Revision 0 RG 5.57, “Shipping and Receiving Control of Strategic Special Nuclear Material,” Revision 1PDF
82 FR 24997 - Shipping, Receiving, and Internal Transfer of Special Nuclear MaterialPDF
82 FR 24996 - Qualification of Safety-Related Vented Lead-Acid Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power PlantsPDF
82 FR 24859 - Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes; CTPDF
82 FR 24983 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 24985 - California; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 24934 - Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers (ACBFR) Request for NominationsPDF
82 FR 24988 - Housing Counseling Certification Examination Availability and Change To Certification Examination CostPDF
82 FR 24847 - Regulated Navigation Area; East River, Brooklyn, NYPDF
82 FR 24971 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 24969 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
82 FR 24943 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Amended Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
82 FR 24941 - Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 24941 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014PDF
82 FR 24959 - Commision Information Collection Activities (FERC-588); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
82 FR 24960 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 24966 - State Policies and Wholesale Markets Operated by ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference CommentsPDF
82 FR 24966 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725v); Comment Request; RevisionPDF
82 FR 24880 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Yellowfin Sole for Vessels Participating in the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
82 FR 24965 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 24961 - Eugene Water and Electric Board; Notice Soliciting Revised Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and PrescriptionsPDF
82 FR 24963 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725T); Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24961 - Red Pine Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 24962 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 24962 - Northern States Power Company-Minnesota; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 24977 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Voluntary Cosmetic Registration ProgramPDF
82 FR 25048 - Veterans and Community Oversight and Engagement Board; Notice of EstablishmentPDF
82 FR 24990 - Tribal Listening Session; Oklahoma City Probate Hearings Division Field OfficePDF
82 FR 24980 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
82 FR 24998 - Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3PDF
82 FR 24967 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24968 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; EIB 11-01, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
82 FR 24879 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Nantucket Lightship Access Area to General Category Individual Fishing Quota Scallop VesselsPDF
82 FR 25018 - Investor Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 25015 - Information Collection: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, NevadaPDF
82 FR 24941 - Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 24993 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Description of Coal Mine Work and Other EmploymentPDF
82 FR 24992 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Claim Adjudication Process for Alleged Presence of PneumoconiosisPDF
82 FR 24994 - Preparations for the 33rd Session of the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS)PDF
82 FR 24989 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0095; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Experimental PopulationsPDF
82 FR 25045 - Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Program; Agency Information Collection Activities and Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 24912 - Glo Eyes, LLC; Filing of Color Additive PetitionPDF
82 FR 24986 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Changes, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request; OMB Control No. 1653-0043.PDF
82 FR 24831 - Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Model 777-300ER Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24828 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc., Model 750 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24837 - Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 170-200 LR Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24834 - Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A350 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24840 - Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24937 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24944 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Listing and Recovery Priority GuidelinesPDF
82 FR 24986 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; Free Training for Civics and Citizenship of Adults, Form G-1190; Civics and Citizenship Toolkit, Form G-1515PDF
82 FR 24937 - Florida National Forests Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 24940 - Prince of Wales Island Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 24938 - Media Outlets for Publication of Legal and Action Notices in the Southern RegionPDF
82 FR 25036 - Series Portfolios Trust and Highmore Group Advisors, LLCPDF
82 FR 25038 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the DTC Settlement Service Guide To Make Technical Revisions To Clarify and Provide Enhanced Transparency With Respect to the Calculation and Adjustment of Required Participants Fund DepositsPDF
82 FR 25035 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Cancel and Replace RulePDF
82 FR 25030 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market-Maker Reports of Executed OrdersPDF
82 FR 25034 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Market-Maker Reports of Executed OrdersPDF
82 FR 25022 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX PEARL Rule 510 To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 25032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 510 To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 25023 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 25025 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 25027 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify Certain Appendix B Web Site Publication Requirements Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 25032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes Amending NYSE Rule 36 and NYSE MKT Rule 36-Equities To Permit Exchange Floor Brokers To Use Non-Exchange Provided Telephones on the FloorPDF
82 FR 25018 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT LLC; NYSE National, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Amend the Certificate and Bylaws of Their Ultimate Parent Company, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.PDF
82 FR 25049 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
82 FR 25044 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24934 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesPDF
82 FR 24970 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Notification of Nonfinancial Data Processing ActivitiesPDF
82 FR 24952 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management ProgramsPDF
82 FR 24958 - U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 24957 - United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 25041 - Privacy Act of 1974; Computer Matching ProgramPDF
82 FR 24843 - Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25043 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “History, Heritage and Hope” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 25042 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Ancient Bodies: Archaeological Perspectives on Mesoamerican Figurines” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 25042 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Chagall: Fantasies for the Stage” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 25043 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Helena Almeida: Work is never finished” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 24958 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Special Education-Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Personnel Development Program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)PDF
82 FR 24969 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0015)PDF
82 FR 24913 - International Mailing Services: Mailing Services Rules ChangesPDF
82 FR 25047 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8886 and Form 14234PDF
82 FR 25047 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request For Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 25046 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 15597PDF
82 FR 25048 - Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 24955 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 24992 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; National Instance Criminal Background Check System SectionPDF
82 FR 24973 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 24971 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 24975 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 24935 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24987 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i), and Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j)PDF
82 FR 24826 - Freedom of Information Act RegulationsPDF
82 FR 24843 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System (CAS)PDF
82 FR 24846 - Establishment of Class E Airspace, Grass Range, MTPDF
82 FR 24950 - Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing-Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold ShiftsPDF
82 FR 24900 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24903 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24906 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24910 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
82 FR 24871 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Cleveland Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead StandardPDF
82 FR 24924 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Cleveland Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead StandardPDF
82 FR 24862 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Air Permit Procedure RevisionsPDF
82 FR 24914 - Air Plan Approval; Alaska: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
82 FR 24864 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Redesignation of the Belding Area in Ionia County to Attainment of the 2008 Lead StandardPDF
82 FR 24924 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Redesignation of the Belding Area in Ionia County to Attainment of the 2008 Lead StandardPDF
82 FR 24914 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of MontanaPDF
82 FR 24853 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of MontanaPDF
82 FR 24913 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revisions to Allegheny County Health Department RulesPDF
82 FR 24860 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revisions to Allegheny County Health Department RulesPDF
82 FR 24851 - Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Air Emissions ReportingPDF
82 FR 24856 - Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Update to Materials Incorporated by ReferencePDF
82 FR 24923 - Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Air Emissions ReportingPDF
82 FR 25017 - Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Liability for Termination of Single-Employer PlansPDF
82 FR 24991 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 24878 - Stay of Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste LandfillsPDF
82 FR 24897 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25052 - Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic ProducersPDF
82 FR 24882 - Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Recommended Decision and Opportunity To File Written Exceptions to Proposed Amendment of Marketing Order No. 989PDF

Issue

82 103 Wednesday, May 31, 2017 Contents Administrative Administrative Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 24934 2017-11137 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions to Proposed Amendment of Marketing Order No. 989: Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California, 24882-24897 2017-09242 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

See

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24935-24937 2017-11108 2017-11158
AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 24957-24958 2017-11133 2017-11134 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24971-24976 2017-11110 2017-11111 2017-11112 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24976-24977 2017-11234 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regulated Navigation Areas: East River, Brooklyn, NY, 24847-24851 2017-11212 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24955-24957 2017-11114 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Special Education-Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Personnel Development Program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results Act, 24958-24959 2017-11122 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes: Connecticut, 24859-24860 2017-11222 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Louisiana; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Air Permit Procedure Revisions, 24862-24864 2017-10955 Michigan; Redesignation of the Belding Area in Ionia County to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard, 24864-24871 2017-10928 Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana, 24853-24855 2017-10924 Ohio; Redesignation of the Cleveland Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard, 24871-24878 2017-10968 Pennsylvania; Revisions to Allegheny County Health Department Rules, 24860-24862 2017-10921 Pennsylvania; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference, 24856-24859 2017-10919 South Carolina: Air Emissions Reporting, 24851-24853 2017-10920 Stay of Standards of Performance: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 24878-24879 2017-10752 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alaska; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 24914-24923 2017-10938 Michigan; Redesignation of the Belding Area in Ionia County to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard, 24924-24925 2017-10926 Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana, 24914 2017-10925 Ohio; Redesignation of the Cleveland Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard, 24924 2017-10965 Pennsylvania; Revisions to Allegheny County Health Department Rules, 24913-24914 2017-10923 South Carolina: Air Emissions Reporting, 24923-24924 2017-10918 Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 24925-24933 2017-11231 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24967-24968 2017-11183 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 24968-24969 2017-11182 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes, 24843-24846 2017-11127 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Grass Range, MT, 24846-24847 2017-11069 Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A350 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24834-24837 2017-11160 Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System; Correction, 24843 2017-11070 Embraer S. A., Model ERJ 170-200 LR Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24837-24840 2017-11161 Embraer S. A., Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24840-24843 2017-11159 Textron Aviation Inc., Model 750 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24828-24831 2017-11162 The Boeing Company, Model 777-300ER Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24831-24834 2017-11163 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 24903-24906 2017-10979 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, 24906-24910 2017-10978 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 24897-24900 2017-10544 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 24900-24902, 24910-24912 2017-10977 2017-10980 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24969 2017-11121 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 24983-24985 2017-11220 Major Disaster Declarations: California; Amendment No. 1, 24985 2017-11217 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24959-24960, 24963-24966 2017-11194 2017-11198 2017-11201 Combined Filings, 24960, 24962, 24965 2017-11192 2017-11196 2017-11200 Hydroelectric Applications: Eugene Water and Electric Board, 24961-24962 2017-11195 Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, 24962-24963 2017-11191 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Red Pine Wind Project, LLC, 24961 2017-11193 Requests for Comments: State Policies and Wholesale Markets Operated by ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, LLC, 24966-24967 2017-11199 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25044-25045 2017-11139 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notification of Nonfinancial Data Processing Activities, 24970-24971 2017-11136 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 24971 2017-11209 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 24969-24970 2017-11208 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board RULES Freedom of Information Act Regulations, 24826-24828 2017-11084 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Experimental Populations, 24989-24990 2017-11169 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Color Additive Petitions: Glo Eyes, LLC, 24912-24913 2017-11165 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program, 24977-24980 2017-11188 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Media Outlets: Publication of Legal and Action Notices in the Southern Region, 24938-24940 2017-11153 Meetings: Florida National Forests Resource Advisory Committee, 24937-24938 2017-11155 Prince of Wales Island Resource Advisory Committee, 24940-24941 2017-11154 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES List of Petitions: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 24980-24981 2017-11185 Hearings Interior Hearings and Appeals Office, Interior Department NOTICES Meetings: Tribal Listening Session; Oklahoma City Probate Hearings Division Field Office, 24990-24991 2017-11186 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Housing Counseling Certification Examination Availability and Change to Certification Examination Cost, 24988-24989 2017-11213 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee, 24941 2017-11175 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Hearings and Appeals Office, Interior Department

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25046-25048 2017-11117 2017-11118 2017-11119 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Steel Nails from United Arab Emirates, 24941-24943 2017-11203 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China; Correction to Final Results of Administrative Review; 2014, 24941 2017-11202 Utility Scale Wind Towers from Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Initiation of Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 24943-24944 2017-11205 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Instance Criminal Background Check System Section, 24992 2017-11113 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Claim Adjudication Process for Alleged Presence of Pneumoconiosis, 24992-24993 2017-11171 Description of Coal Mine Work and Other Employment, 24993-24994 2017-11173
National Drug National Drug Control Policy Office NOTICES Meetings: President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, 24995-24996 2017-11230 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 24982-24983 2017-11236 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 24982 2017-11235 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 24982 2017-11237 National Institute of Mental Health, 24981-24982 2017-11238 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: Yellowfin Sole for Vessels Participating in the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 24880-24881 2017-11197 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Nantucket Lightship Access Area to General Category Individual Fishing Quota Scallop Vessels, 24879-24880 2017-11180 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines, 24944-24950 2017-11157 Meetings: Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs, 24952 2017-11135 New England Fishery Management Council, 24944 2017-11284 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 24951-24955 2017-11283 2017-11287 Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing: Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts, 24950-24951 2017-11035 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, 25015-25016 2017-11177 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, 24998-25015 2017-11184 Guidance: Evaluation of Shipper-Receiver Differences in the Transfer of Special Nuclear Material, Revision 0; Internal Transfers of Special Nuclear Material, Revision 0; Shipping and Receiving Control of Strategic Special Nuclear Material, Revision 1; Withdrawal, 25016-25017 2017-11225 Qualification of Safety-Related Vented Lead-Acid Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants, 24996-24997 2017-11223 Shipping, Receiving, and Internal Transfer of Special Nuclear Material, 24997-24998 2017-11224 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Meetings: Preparations for the 33rd session of the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, 24994-24995 2017-11170 Advocacy Outreach Office of Advocacy and Outreach NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, 24934-24935 2017-11214 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Liability for Termination of Single-Employer Plans, 25017 2017-10785 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Prevailing Rate Systems: Redefinition of Certain Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas, 24825-24826 2017-11232 Postal Service Postal Service PROPOSED RULES International Mailing Services: Mailing Services Rules Changes, 24913 2017-11120 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Prayer For Peace, Memorial Day (Proc. 9617), 24823-24824 2017-11354 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Series Portfolios Trust and Highmore Group Advisors, LLC, 25036-25037 2017-11152 Meetings: Investor Advisory Committee, 25018 2017-11178 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25029-25030 2017-11281 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 25034-25035 2017-11148 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 25030-25031 2017-11149 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 25027-25029 2017-11143 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 25032-25033 2017-11146 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 25022-25023 2017-11147 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 25035-25036 2017-11150 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 25025-25027 2017-11144 New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT LLC; NYSE National, Inc., 25018-25022 2017-11141 New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC, 25032 2017-11142 The Depository Trust Co., 25038-25041 2017-11151 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 25023-25025 2017-11145 Selective Selective Service System NOTICES Privacy Act of 1974; Computer Matching Program, 25041-25042 2017-11130 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Ancient Bodies: Archaeological Perspectives on Mesoamerican Figurines Exhibition, 25042 2017-11125 Chagall: Fantasies for the Stage Exhibition, 25042-25043 2017-11124 Helena Almeida: Work is never finished Exhibition, 25043 2017-11123 History, Heritage and Hope Exhibition, 25043 2017-11126 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Waybill Sample, 25043-25044 2017-11233 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act Program, 25045-25046 2017-11167
Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, etc., 24987-24988 2017-11103 Free Training for Civics and Citizenship of Adults; Civics and Citizenship Toolkit, 24986-24987 2017-11156 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers, 25052-25202 2017-10472 Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24986 2017-11164 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Charter Establishments: Veterans and Community Oversight and Engagement Board, 25048 2017-11187 Exclusive Licenses; Approvals: Avicenna Medical, Inc., 25049 2017-11140 Meetings: Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee, 25048-25049 2017-11115 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Homeland Security Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 25052-25202 2017-10472 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.

82 103 Wednesday, May 31, 2017 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 532 RIN 3206-AN48 Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas AGENCY:

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the geographic boundaries of several nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas. Based on consensus recommendations of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is defining Lee County, Florida, as an area of application county to the Hillsborough, FL, NAF FWS wage area; Leon County, FL, as an area of application county to the Lowndes, Georgia, NAF FWS wage area; Fulton County, GA, as an area of application county to the Cobb, GA, NAF FWS wage area; and Lane County, Oregon, as an area of application county to the Pierce, Washington, NAF FWS wage area. These changes are necessary because there are NAF FWS employees working in these four counties, and the counties are not currently defined in regulation to NAF wage areas. In addition, OPM is removing Mississippi County, Arkansas, from the wage area definition of the Shelby, Tennessee, NAF FWS wage area because there are no longer NAF FWS employees working in the county.

DATES:

Effective date: This regulation is effective on May 31, 2017.

Applicability date: This change applies on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after June 30, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2838 or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 12, 2017, OPM issued a proposed rule (82 FR 3677) to define—

• Lee County, Florida, as an area of application county to the Hillsborough, FL, NAF FWS wage area;

• Leon County, FL, as an area of application county to the Lowndes, Georgia, NAF FWS wage area;

• Fulton County, GA, as an area of application county to the Cobb, GA, NAF FWS wage area; and

• Lane County, Oregon, as an area of application county to the Pierce, Washington, NAF FWS wage area.

In addition, the proposed rule removed Mississippi County, AR, from the wage area definition of the Shelby, TN, NAF FWS wage area.

FPRAC, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, reviewed and recommended this change by consensus. These changes will apply on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 30 days following publication of the final regulations.

The proposed rule had a 30-day comment period, during which OPM received no comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Kathleen M. McGettigan, Acting Director.

Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.

Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532—Nonappropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas 2. Appendix D to subpart B is amended by revising the wage area listing for the Hillsborough, FL; Cobb, GA; Lowndes, GA; Shelby, TN; and Pierce, WA, wage areas to read as follows: Appendix D to Subpart B—Nonappropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas *    *    *    *    * FLORIDA *    *    *    *    * Hillsborough Survey Area Florida: Hillsborough Area of Application. Survey area plus: Florida: Lee Pinellas Polk *    *    *    *    * GEORGIA *    *    *    *    * Cobb Survey Area Georgia: Cobb Area of Application. Survey area plus: Georgia: Bartow De Kalb Fulton *    *    *    *    * Lowndes Survey Area Georgia: Lowndes Area of Application. Survey area plus: Florida: Leon *    *    *    *    * TENNESSEE Shelby Survey Area Tennessee: Shelby Area of Application. Survey area plus: Missouri: Butler *    *    *    *    * WASHINGTON *    *    *    *    * Pierce Survey Area Washington: Pierce Area of Application. Survey area plus: Oregon: Clatsop Coos Douglas Multnomah Tillamook Washington: Clark Grays Harbor Lane *    *    *    *    *
[FR Doc. 2017-11232 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD 5 CFR Part 1631 Freedom of Information Act Regulations AGENCY:

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Board) is amending its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to implement recommendations made by the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) and reflect the amendments required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.

DATES:

This rule is effective May 31, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dharmesh Vashee, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Office of General Counsel, 77 K Street NE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002, 202-639-4424. You may also contact Amanda Haas, FOIA Officer, Office of General Counsel, at the above address and by phone at 202-942-1660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Board administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal employees and members of the uniformed services who participate in the TSP.

Paperwork Reduction Act

I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, and 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532 is not required.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1631

Freedom of information, Records.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Board amends 5 CFR part 1631 as follows:

PART 1631—AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 1. The authority for part 1631 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552.

2. Amend § 1631.1 by adding new paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) to read as follows:
§ 1631.1 Definitions.

(j) FOIA Public Liaison means the Board official who is responsible for assisting in reducing delays, increasing transparency and understanding of the status of requests, and assisting in the resolution of disputes.

(k) Requestor category means one of the three categories that agencies place requesters in for the purpose of determining whether a requester will be charged fees for search, review, and/or duplication, including:

(1) Commercial use requestors,

(2) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters, and

(3) All other requestors.

(l) Fee waiver means the waiver or reduction of processing fees if a requester can demonstrate that certain statutory standards are satisfied including that the information is in the public interest and is not requested for a commercial interest.

3. Amend § 1631.4 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1631.4 Proactive disclosure of Board records.

(a) Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection and copying may be accessed through the Board's Web site at https://www.frtib.gov. The Board is responsible for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly available, as well as identifying additional records of interest to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and for posting and indexing such records. The Board shall ensure that its Web site of posted records and indices is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. The Board has a FOIA Public Liaison who can assist individuals in locating records particular to a component. The FOIA Public Liaison can be contacted at [email protected].

4. Revise § 1631.5 to read as follows:
§ 1631.5 Records of other agencies.

Requests for records that originated in another agency and that are in the custody of the Board may, in appropriate circumstances, be referred to that agency for consultation or processing, and the requestor shall be notified of the part or parts of the request that have been referred and provided with a point of contact within the receiving agency.

5. In § 1631.6, in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), remove the word “must” and add in its place the word “should” and revise the last sentence in paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1631.6 How to request records—form and content.

(e) * * * Any Board employee or official who receives an oral request for records shall inform the requestor that FOIA requires requests to be in writing according to the procedures set out herein.

6. Amend § 1631.8 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1631.8 Prompt response.

(b) The FOIA Officer will either approve or deny a reasonably descriptive request for records within 20 workdays after receipt of the request. Whenever the Board cannot meet the statutory time limit for processing a request because of “unusual circumstances,” as defined in the FOIA, and the Board extends the time limit on that basis, the Board must, before expiration of the 20-day period to respond, notify the requester in writing of the unusual circumstances involved and of the date by which the Board estimates processing of the request will be completed. Where the extension exceeds 10 working days, the Board must, as described by the FOIA, provide the requester with an opportunity to modify the request or arrange an alternative time period for processing the original or modified request through the Board's FOIA Public Liaison or FOIA Officer.

7. Amend § 1631.9 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a), and paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
§ 1631.9 Responses—form and content.

(a) * * * The notification shall also provide the requestor with an estimated amount of fees assessed under § 1631.13 of this part, including a breakdown of the fees for search, review, and/or duplication.

(b) * * *

(5) A statement that the denial may be appealed to the Executive Director within 90 calendar days of receipt of the denial or partial denial, that the requestor has the option to contact the Agency's FOIA Liaison at [email protected], and that the requestor has the option to contact the Office of Government Information Service (OGIS) as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.

8. Amend § 1631.10 by revising paragraph (a), adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e), and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
§ 1631.10 Appeals to the Executive Director from initial denials.

(a) A requestor may appeal any adverse determinations to the Executive Director. The appeal must be made in writing and for it to be considered timely it must be postmarked, or in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted, within 90 calendar days of receipt of the denial or partial denial. The appeal should be addressed to the Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 77 K Street NE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002, and should be clearly labeled as a “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”

(e) * * * The denial will also inform the requester of the mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) of the National Archives and Records Administration as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If the FOIA Officer's decision is remanded or modified on appeal, the requestor will be notified of that determination in writing.

(h) Seeking mediation and dispute resolution services through OGIS is a voluntary process. If the requestor chooses to use these services, the Board will work with OGIS to resolve disputes between requestors and the Board as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.

(i) Before seeking review by a court of the FOIA Officer's adverse determination, a requestor generally must first submit a timely administrative appeal to the Executive Director.

9. Amend § 1631.11 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), and the first sentence of paragraph (a)(4), and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 1631.11 Fees to be charged—categories of requestors.

(a) In general, the Board will charge for processing requests under the FOIA in accordance with the provisions of this section and with the OMB Guidelines. For purposes of assessing fees there are three categories of FOIA requestors—commercial use requestors, non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters, and all other requestors.

(1) Fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search, duplication, and review, when records are requested for commercial use. Commercial users are not entitled to two hours of free search time or 100 free pages of reproduction of documents. The full allowable direct cost of searching for, and reviewing records will be charged even if there is ultimately no disclosure of records. A commercial use request is a request that asks for information for a use or a purpose that furthers a commercial, trade, or profit interest, which can include furthering those interests through litigation. The Board's decision to place a requester in the commercial use category will be made on a case-by-case basis based on the requester's intended use of the information. The Board will notify requesters of their placement in this category.

(2) Fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by a representative of the news media. A representative of the news media is any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. The Board will advise requesters of their placement in this category.

(3) Fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research. A noncommercial scientific institution is an institution that is not operated on a “commercial” basis, as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and that is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry. A requester in this category must show that the request is authorized by and is made under the auspices of a qualifying institution and that the records are sought to further scientific research and are not for a commercial use. The Board will advise requesters of their placement in this category.

(4) For any request which does not meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search and duplication, except that the first 100 pages of reproduction and the first two hours of search time will be furnished without charge. * * *

(d) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section, the Board will not assess any search fees (or duplication fees for requesters under (a)(2) or (3) of this section) if the Board fails to comply with the time limits set forth in § 1631.8.

(1) If the Board determines that “unusual circumstances,” as defined in the FOIA, apply and the Board provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with § 1631.8, the Board is excused for an additional 10 days from the restrictions of this section.

(2) If the Board has determined that unusual circumstances apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, the Board may charge search fees (or duplication fees for requesters under (a)(2) or (3) of this section) if the Board provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with § 1631.8 and the Board has discussed with the requester, or made not less than 3 good-faith attempts to do so, how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request.

(3) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined in the FOIA, the Agency's delay shall be excused in accordance with the court order.

10. Amend § 1631.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
§ 1631.14 Fee schedule.

(c) * * *

(3) For copies prepared by computer, such as tapes, printouts, or CD's the Board shall charge the actual cost, including operator time, of producing the tapes, printouts, or CD's. * * *

11. Amend § 1631.15 by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a), and revising paragraph (b)(1), removing the undesignated paragraph after (b)(1) and adding paragraph (b) (1) (ii) to read as follows:
§ 1631.15 Information to be disclosed.

(a) * * * Nevertheless, the Board will consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever full disclosure of the record is not and take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information.

(b) * * *

(1) (i) Board personnel will generally consider two of the nine exemptions in the FOIA in deciding whether to withhold from disclosure material from a non-U.S. Government source.

(ii) Exemption 4 permits withholding of “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person as privileged or confidential.” The term “person” refers to individuals as well as to a wide range of entities, including corporations, banks, state governments, agencies of foreign governments, and Native American tribes or nations, who provide information to the government. Exemption 6 permits withholding certain information, the disclosure of which ”would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

12. Revise § 1631.17 to read as follows:
§ 1631.17 Deletion of exempted information.

Where requested records contain matters which are exempted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b) but which matters are reasonably segregable from the remainder of the records, they shall be disclosed by the Board with deletions. To each such record, the Board shall indicate, if technically feasible, the precise amount of information deleted and the exemption under which the deletion is made, at the place in the records where the deletion is made, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption.

13. Add § 1631.19 to read as follows:
§ 1631.19 Preservation of records.

(a) The Board must preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized by the Board's General Records Schedule of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other NARA-approved records retention schedule.

(b) Materials that are identified as responsive to a FOIA request will not be disposed of or destroyed while the request or a related appeal of lawsuit is pending. This is true even if they would otherwise be authorized for disposition under the Board's General Records Schedule of NARA or other NARA-approved records schedule.

Dated: May 17, 2017. Ravindra Deo, Acting Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2017-11084 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0378; Special Conditions No. 25-686-SC] Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc., Model 750 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 750 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Textron on May 31, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0378 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot. gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

Textron holds type certificate no. T00007WI, which provides the certification basis for the Model 750 airplane. The Model 750 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 12 and a maximum takeoff weight of 35,700 to 36,600 pounds, depending on the specific design.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Model 750 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Textron must show that the Model 750 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00007WI or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 750 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 750 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

• Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

• Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

• Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 750 airplane. Should Textron apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Textron Model 750 airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11162 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0386; Special Conditions No. 25-687-SC] Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Model 777-300ER Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on The Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 777-300ER series airplanes. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on The Boeing Company on May 31, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0386 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

Boeing holds type certificate no. T00001SE, which provides the certification basis for the 777-300ER series airplanes. The 777-300ER is a swept wing, twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 550.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the 777-300ER series airplanes. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Boeing must show that the 777-300ER series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00001SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 777-300ER series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 777-300ER series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the 777-300ER series airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes. Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11163 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0370; Special Conditions No. 25-683-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A350 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Airbus Model A350 series airplanes. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Airbus on May 31, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0370 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

Airbus holds type certificate no. T00063IB, which provides the certification basis for the A350 series airplanes. The A350 series airplanes are twin engine, transport category airplanes with a passenger seating capacity of 330 to 440 and a maximum takeoff weight of 590,838 to 606,270 pounds, depending on the specific design.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the A350 series airplanes. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Airbus must show that the A350 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00063IB or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the A350 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the A350 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the A350 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain a novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus Model A350 series airplanes.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11160 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0374; Special Conditions No. 25-684-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 170-200 LR Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the EmbraerS.A. (Embraer) Model ERJ 170-200 LR airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Embraer on May 31, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0374 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot. gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

Embraer holds type certificate no. A56NM, which provides the certification basis for the ERJ 170-200 LR airplane. The ERJ 170-200 LR is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 88 and a maximum takeoff weight of 85,517 pounds.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the ERJ 170-200 LR airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Embraer must show that the ERJ 170-200 LR airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A56NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the ERJ 170-200 LR airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the ERJ 170-200 LR must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the ERJ 170-200 LR airplane. Should Embraer apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-200 LR airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be required to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be required to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11161 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0357; Special Conditions No. 25-685-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Embraer S.A. (Embraer) Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Embraer on May 31, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2017-0357] using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

Embraer holds type certificate no. A57NM, which will be amended to provide the certification basis for the ERJ 190-300 airplane. The ERJ 190-300 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 112 and a wing design with a high aspect ratio and raked wingtip.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the ERJ 190-300 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Embraer must show that the ERJ 190-300 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A57NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the ERJ 190-300 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the ERJ 190-300 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the ERJ 190-300 airplane. Should Embraer apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11159 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 29 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6940; Notice No. 29-039-SC] Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System (CAS) AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; correction.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is correcting the special condition published on November 9, 2016 which became effective on December 9, 2016 for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter has a novel or unusual design feature associated with the electronic CAS. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

Effective Date: May 31, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Harrum, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 9, 2016, the FAA published a final special condition entitled “Special Condition: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System (CAS).” 81 FR 78707. In that final special condition, the FAA inadvertently used the incorrect format for the notice number in the header information of the special condition as 29-039-SW-SC. The correct notice number is 29-039-SC.

Correction

In the final special condition, FR Doc. 2019-27088, published on November 9, 2016 at 81 FR 78707 make the following correction:

1. On page 78707, in column one, in the heading of the final special condition, revise “Notice No. 29-039-SW-SC” to read as “Notice No. 29-039-SC”.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 19, 2017. Lance Gant, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11070 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0506; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-019-AD; Amendment 39-18907; AD 2017-11-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the 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 propeller regulating valve caused by hot exhaust gases coming from fractured engine exhaust pipes. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 31, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 31, 2017.

We must receive comments on this AD by July 17, 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.

Fax: (202) 493-2251.

Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.diamondaircraft.com. 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0506.

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-2017-0506; 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 in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2017-0090, dated May 17, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 and DA 42 M airplanes. The MCAI states:

Two cases were reported of uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) on DA 42 aeroplanes. Subsequent investigations identified that these occurrences were due to failure of the propeller regulating valve, caused by hot exhaust gases coming from fractured engine exhaust pipes. The initiating cracks on the exhaust pipes were not detected during previous inspections, since those exhaust pipes are equipped with non-removable heat shields that do not allow inspection for certain sections of the exhaust pipe.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further cases of IFSD or overheat damage, possibly resulting in a forced landing, with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) developed an exhaust pipe without a directly attached integral heat shield that allows visual inspection over the entire exhaust pipe length. DAI issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 42-120 and relevant Working Instruction (WI) WI-MSB 42-120, providing instructions to install the modified exhaust pipes. As an interim measure, an additional bracket was designed to hold the exhaust pipe in place in case of a pipe fracture. EASA issued AD 2016-0156 (later revised), requiring replacement of the exhaust pipes with pipes having the new design, or installation of the additional brackets.

Since EASA AD 2016-0156R1 was issued, cracks were found during inspection on modified exhaust pipes. Further investigation determined that, with the modified exhaust pipe design, vibration leads to cracking.

To address this potential unsafe condition, DAI published MSB 42-129 providing instructions for inspection of modified exhaust pipes.

For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0156R1, which is superseded, and requires repetitive inspections of modified exhaust pipes and, depending on findings, repair or replacement. This AD is considered interim action and further AD action may follow upon availability of an improved exhaust pipe design.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0506.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB-42-129, dated May 17, 2017, and Work Instruction WI-OSB-42-122, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2016. Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB-42-129, dated May 17, 2017, describes procedures for inspecting the DAI part number(P/N) D60-9078-06-01_01 and Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01 engine exhaust pipes. Work Instruction WI-OSB-42-122, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2016, describes procedures for (among other things) replacing the engine exhaust pipes. 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 final rule.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have 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 the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Differences Between the AD and MCAI

The MCAI allows for either replacement or repair if a cracked exhaust pipe is found during an inspection. This AD will only allow for replacement. If there were to become a parts availability issue at some time, we would consider the welding repair as an alternative method of compliance.

In addition, the MCAI supersedes the previous EASA AD 2016-0156R1, which introduced the DAI part number (P/N) D60-9078-06-01_01 and Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01 engine exhaust pipes that are the subject of this AD. The FAA is not superseding the corresponding AD 2017-01-12, Amendment 39-18779 (82 FR 5359; January 18, 2017) because there were other options in that AD that would not be affected by this action. Thus AD 2017-01-12 establishes the baseline for the applicability of this AD, and if any of the affected exhaust pipes were installed per AD 2017-01-12 they would be subject to the actions of this AD action.

The airplane models affected by the MCAI are the Models DA 42 and DA 42 M. Only the DA 42 is type certificated in the United States so this AD action will only affect the Model DA 42 airplanes.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the affected engine exhaust pipes could crack and cause hot gases to leak from fractured exhaust pipes and lead to an uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

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-2017-0506; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-019-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 we receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 130 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 the AD on U.S. operators to be $22,100, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $2,100, for a cost of $2,270 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

According to the design approval holder, some of the costs of this AD (cost of parts) 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 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

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 AD: 2017-11-08 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Amendment 39-18907; Docket No. FAA-2017-0506; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-019-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 31, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 airplanes, serial numbers 42.004 through 42.427 and 42.AC001 through 42.AC151, certificated in any category, that have:

(1) either a TAE 125-02-99 or TAE 125-02-114 engine installed; and

(2) either DAI part number (P/N) D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01 engine exhaust pipes installed.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 78: Engine Exhaust.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by cracks in the affected engine exhaust pipes, which could cause failure of the propeller regulating valve because of hot exhaust gases coming from the fractured pipes. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown or overheat damage, which could result in a forced landing, consequent damage, and occupant injury.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1) Before or upon accumulating 40 hours time-in-service (TIS) on the affected engine exhaust pipes or within the next 10 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect each engine exhaust pipe following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB-42-129, dated May 17, 2017.

(2) If any crack(s) is/are found on any engine exhaust pipe during any inspection required by this AD, before further flight, replace the affected engine exhaust pipe(s) following Step 14 (page 8) of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-OSB-42-122, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2016.

(3) The replacement required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD when a DAI part number  (P/N) D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01 engine exhaust pipe is installed.

(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: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; 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.

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, 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.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2017-0090, dated May 17, 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-2017-0506.

(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) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB-42-129, dated May 17, 2017.

(ii) Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-122, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2016.

(3) For Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.diamondaircraft.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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0506.

(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 19, 2017. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11127 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0047; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-1] Establishment of Class E Airspace, Grass Range, MT AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at N Bar Ranch, Grass Range, MT, to support the development of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, for the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System. A correction also is made changing the town name from Grassrange.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, August 17, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection 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/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at N Bar Ranch Airport, Grass Range, MT, to support the development of IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

History

On February 27, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11866) Docket FAA-2017-0047 a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at N Bar Ranch, Grass Range, MT. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at N Bar Ranch, Grass Range, MT, within an area 3.6 miles wide extending 6.1 miles northeast and 5.9 miles southwest of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in new standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM MT E5 Grass Range, MT [New] N Bar Ranch, MT (Lat. 46°50′17″ N., long. 108°56′13″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 1.8 miles each side of a 070° bearing from the N Bar Ranch Airport extending to 6.1 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of a 250° bearing from the airport extending to 5.9 miles southwest of the airport.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 22, 2017. Sam S.L. Shrimpton, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-11069 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0434] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; East River, Brooklyn, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated navigation area (RNA) for the navigable waters of the Manhattan side of the East River, south of Dupont Street in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and East 25th Street in Manhattan, and north of a line drawn from the northwest corner of Pier 5 Brooklyn to the northeast corner of the Governors Island Ferry Manhattan Terminal. The RNA is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with a dielectric oil spill response. This RNA establishes vessel speed restrictions on vessels transiting near the pollution response area unless specifically authorized by the First District Commander or the Captain of the Port New York to exceed those restrictions.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from May 31, 2017 through 5 p.m. on July 14, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 4 p.m. May 16, 2017, through May 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0434 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 Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management at Coast Guard First District, telephone 617-223-8351, email [email protected] or Mr. Jeff Yunker, Sector New York Waterways Management Division; telephone 718-354-4195, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port New York DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section RNA Regulated Navigation Area TFR Temporary final rule U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On May 8, 2017, we established a temporary safety zone entitled “Safety Zone; East River and Buttermilk Channel, Brooklyn, NY” for emergency pollution response. The effective period for the safety zone is from 4 p.m. on May 8, 2017, until 5 p.m. on July 14, 2017. This safety zone prohibits all vessels from transiting through the Brooklyn side of the East River and Buttermilk Channel, south of Dupont Street in Greenpoint, Brooklyn and East 25th Street in Manhattan, and Buttermilk Channel, north of the Buttermilk Channel Entrance Lighted Gong Buoy 1 (LLNR 36985).

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 impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this rule to let a comment period run. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's response to protecting the environment and public from the dangers associated with a maritime pollution response effort.

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 this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The First District Commander and COTP have determined that vessels producing a wake near the emergency pollution response activities and in-water shoreside repair operations will be a safety concern for pollution response vessels, machinery, and personnel. Further, the emergency pollution response activities pose hazards to the boating public and the maritime environment. This rule is necessary to limit damage to deployed containment boom, and to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters adjacent to the RNA while these activities are in progress.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a RNA from 4 p.m. May 16, 2017 through 5 p.m. July 14, 2017. The RNA will cover all navigable waters of the Manhattan side of the East River, south of Dupont Street in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and East 25th Street in Manhattan, and north of a line drawn from the northwest corner of Pier 5 Brooklyn to the northeast corner of the Governors Island Ferry Manhattan Terminal.

ER31MY17.000

The duration of the RNA is intended to limit damage to the pollution containment boom, and protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment adjacent to these navigable waters during the emergency pollution response. No vessel or person will be permitted to produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway without obtaining permission from the First District Commander, 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. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the RNA. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit through this RNA, which will impact a small designated area of the East River, NY during emergency pollution response operations. Vessels will be able to transit at a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit and vessels may attain speeds greater than five (5) knots if a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the RNA.

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 RNA 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 this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 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 RNA lasting two months that will prohibit vessels from producing a wake or attaining speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration for Categorically Excluded Actions will be 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, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T01-0434 to read as follows:
§ 165.T01 0434 Regulated Navigation Area; East River, Brooklyn, NY.

(a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area (RNA): All waters of the Manhattan half of the East River, south of a line drawn from (pa) 40°44′07.5″ N., 073°57′40.3″ W. (Dupont Street, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, NY) to 40°44′10.1″ N., 073°58′21.6″ W. (NAD 83) (East 25th Street, Manhattan, NY) and north of a line drawn from the northwest corner of Pier 5 Brooklyn to the northeast corner of the Governors Island Ferry Manhattan Terminal.

(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

(1) Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the First District Commander or COTP to act on his or her behalf. A designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

(2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.

(c) Enforcement Period. This RNA is effective and will be enforced from 4 p.m. on May 16, 2017, through 5 p.m. July 14, 2017.

(d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.10, 165.11, and 165.13 as well as the following regulations, apply.

(2) During periods of enforcement, all vessel movement within the RNA is subject to a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. Vessels may not produce a wake nor not attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.

(3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.

Dated: May 16, 2017. S.D. Poulin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-11212 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0217; FRL-9962-30-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Air Emissions Reporting AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve changes to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address requirements for the reporting of emissions of criteria air pollutants (CAPs) and their precursors. EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted on June 14, 2010, by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), and portions of subsequent SIP revisions submitted on August 8, 2014 and November 4, 2016, which further revise the regulations concerning the reporting of emissions. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective July 31, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 30, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0217 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, 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:

D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR), set forth at 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, are requirements for the reporting of CAPs and precursors for all point sources, mobile sources, and nonpoint sources. The requirements for reporting of point source emissions from states to the emissions inventory system (EIS) is outlined in Appendix A to subpart A, which sets an annual or triennial reporting period based on thresholds of potential to emit. This set of reporting requirements and schedules, promulgated October 17, 2008 (73 FR 76539), replaced the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Requirements (CERR) established on June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39602). The CERR replaced prior reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 51, subpart Q. It expanded the pollutants covered and geographic areas reporting, and served as the basis for data collection in the EIS, which is used to develop the national emissions inventory (NEI). The AERR rulemaking was promulgated in an effort to harmonize various reporting requirements for the states, including those previously established with the CERR, additional reporting required for ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas, and reporting requirements under the oxides of nitrogen (NOX) SIP Call. The AERR was later revised on February 19, 2015, to make those reporting requirements for nonattainment areas and the NOX SIP Call optional under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, among other changes. See 80 FR 8787.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

This SIP revision, submitted first in the June 14, 2010, submittal, and later updated in the August 8, 2014, and November 4, 2016, submittals, clarifies federal requirements for reporting of point source emissions as revised in the AERR at South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section III—“Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements.” South Carolina previously adopted the CERR provisions for major source reporting, which were approved into the SIP on December 7, 2006 (71 FR 70880). The June 14, 2010, submittal and the portions of the August 8, 2014, and November 4, 2016, submittals addressed in this action update those requirements to be consistent with the AERR. EPA is not acting on the portion of the August 8, 2014, submittal that formally adopted the emissions statement requirement in South Carolina's SIP for sources of NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOC) pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), covering nonattainment areas for the ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This portion of the August 8, 2014, submittal was approved on June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33413). EPA is also not acting on other portions of the August 8, 2014, and November 4, 2016, submittals revising other South Carolina regulations.1

1 EPA is not acting on the additional changes made in the August 8, 2014, submittal to the following rules: Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions;” Regulation 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements;” Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV—“Source Tests;” Regulation 61-62.1, Section V—“Credible Evidence;” Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1—“Emissions from Fuel Burning Operations;” or Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries.” EPA is also not acting on the additional changes made in the November 4, 2016, submittal to the following rules: Regulation 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements;” Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1—“Emissions from Fuel Burning Operations;” Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2—“Ambient Air Quality Standards;” or Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries.” EPA will address these additional changes to the South Carolina SIP in a separate action. Finally, EPA is not acting on the change made to Regulation 61-62.60—“South Carolina Designated Facility Plan and New Source Performance Standards” because this is not part of the federally approved SIP.

The three submittals from SC DHEC addressed in this action formally adopt the federal AERR provisions and thresholds for point sources into the SIP, thereby providing a mechanism for the state to collect emissions from sources and report those to EPA. The point source reporting in the AERR generally applies to major sources, as defined in 40 CFR part 70, the title V regulations. These types of sources are required to report annual emissions in a triennial period. For certain larger point sources, emissions are required to be reported annually through the EIS.

The AERR also provides for triennial reporting of VOCs for minor sources in “serious,” “severe,” and “extreme” ozone nonattainment areas for sources that emit greater than or equal to 50 tpy, 25 tpy and 10 tpy, respectively. The AERR also requires reporting of emissions of particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) that are greater than or equal to 70 tpy in any area designated as “serious” nonattainment for PM10. South Carolina's June 14, 2010, August 8, 2014, and November 4, 2016, submittals adopt these nonattainment inventory reporting requirements in full.

In addition, the AERR was recently updated on February 19, 2015, to provide for a lower threshold for the reporting of lead emissions, independent of the designation with respect to the lead NAAQS (80 FR 8787). The lead reporting requirement is based on a threshold of 0.5 tpy of monitored emissions, which means reporting is triggered by actual emissions rather than potential emissions. South Carolina's November 4, 2016, submittal, incorporates this update to the AERR.

Finally, emissions other than CAPs are at the state's discretion to report to the EIS, such as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (40 CFR 51.15(a)(4)). South Carolina originally included the reporting of HAPs in its June 14, 2010, adoption of AERR provisions, but removed this requirement in its August 8, 2014, update to its rules. The net effect of these revisions is that HAPs are not required to be reported in this format.

EPA is approving South Carolina's adoption of federal AERR provisions as described above pursuant to the CAA.

III. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporate by reference of SC DHEC Regulation 61-62.1, Section III, entitled “Emissions Inventory,” effective September 23, 2016. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving changes to South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section III, made on June 14, 2010, and later revised on August 8, 2014, and November 4, 2016. These changes revise South Carolina's emissions reporting requirements for point sources in its SIP to be consistent with federal regulations.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal 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 revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective July 31, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by June 30, 2017.

If 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. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on July 31, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, this direct final rule for South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within York County in South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes that today's action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 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 today's 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 27, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 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 PP—South Carolina 2. Section 52.2120(c) is amended by revising an entry under “Regulation No. 62.1” entitled “Section III” to read as follows:
§ 52.2120 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

Air Pollution Control Regulations for South Carolina State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Federal Register notice *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section III Emission Inventory and Emissions Statement 9/23/2016 5/31/2017 [Insert Federal Register page citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
[FR Doc. 2017-10920 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0020; FRL-9963-15-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Montana on September 8, 2016. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) and include updates to the citations and references to federal and state laws and regulations, updated links to sources of information, and provides clarity on how copies of federal regulations may be obtained. This action is being taken in accordance with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This rule is effective on August 29, 2017 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by June 30, 2017. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we 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-R08-OAR-2017-0020 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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).

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP revisions if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If the EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. If the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We would address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to the EPA through https://www.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 the 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 submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and page number);

• Follow directions and organize your comments;

• Explain why you agree or disagree;

• Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

III. Background

On September 8, 2016, the state of Montana submitted formal revisions to its SIP (hereafter, the “2016 SIP revisions”). The 2016 SIP revisions contain amendments updating citations and references to federal and state laws and regulations in ARM sections 17.8.102 and 17.8.103. The Montana Board of Environmental Review adopted the amendments on May 29, 2015 (effective June 26, 2015).

IV. Review of the State of Montana's September 8, 2016 Submittal

We evaluated Montana's September 8, 2016 submittal regarding revisions to the State's ARM. The 2016 SIP revisions to ARM 17.8.102 and 17.8.103 update the citations and references to federal and state laws and regulations, update links to sources of information, and provide clarity on how copies of federal regulations may be obtained. All of the 2016 SIP revisions are approvable. Therefore, in this action we are approving revisions to ARM sections 17.8.102 and 17.8.103 as detailed in Section V below.

V. What action is the EPA taking?

The amendments to Montana ARM 17.8.102 and 17.8.103 update the date of the version of the federal regulations incorporated by reference regarding air quality rules as they existed on July 1, 2014, federal statutes as they existed on December 31, 2013, and the September 30, 2014 edition of the ARM. Therefore, the EPA is taking direct final action to approve the following revisions, shown in Table 1, to Montana's air rules.

Table 1—List of Montana Revisions the EPA Is Approving Revised Sections in September 8, 2016
  • Submittal for Approval
  • September 8, 2016 submittal: 17.8.102(1)(a)-(c); 17.8.103(4) and (5).
    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 Administrative Rules of Montana described in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR part 52 below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this direct final action merely approves some 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);

    • 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, Aug. 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 CAA; and,

    • Does not provide the 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, Feb. 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 12, 2017. Suzanne J. Bohan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 BB—Montana 2. Section 52.1370(c) is amended under “(i) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 01, General Provisions” by revising entries “17.8.102” and “17.8.103”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.1370 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    State citation Rule title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA final
  • rule date
  • Final rule citation Comments
    (1) Statewide (i) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 01, General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.102 Incorporation by Reference 6/26/15 5/31/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.103 Incorporation by Reference 6/26/15 5/31/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-10924 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [PA 200-4205; FRL-9959-23-Region 3] Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; administrative change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Pennsylvania state implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the EPA Regional Office.

    DATES:

    This action is effective May 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; or NARA. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon McCauley, (215) 814-3376, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register document. On February 25, 2005 (70 FR 9450), EPA published a document in the Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedure for Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties. On January 3, 2007 (72 FR 200), March 25, 2009 (74 FR 13014), July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38992), and August 1, 2013 (78 FR 46516), EPA published updates to the IBR material for Pennsylvania.

    Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved the following regulatory changes to the following regulations and sections for Pennsylvania and Allegheny County:

    A. Added Regulations

    1. Additions of the following regulations or sections in 25 PA Code, article III:

    a. Chapter 123 (Standards for Contaminants, Sulfur Compound Emissions), sections 123.22(f) and 123.22(g).

    b. Chapter 129 (Standard for Sources), (Sources for VOCs), sections 67(a) and 67(b).

    2. Addition of title 65 (Pennsylvania Statute—Public Officers), part II (Accountability), chapter 11 (Ethics, Standards, and Financial Disclosure), sections 1101 (Short title of chapter), 1102 (Definitions), 1104 (Statement of financial interests required to be filed), 1105 (Statement of financial interests) and 1109 (Penalties).

    3. Additions of the following regulations or sections in Allegheny County article XXI:

    a. Additional definitions were added to part A (General), section 2102.20.

    b. Part D (Pollutant Emission Standards), section 2104.09.

    c. Part E (Source Emission and Operating Standards), subpart 7 (Miscellaneous VOC Sources), section 2105.80 through 2105.86 inclusive.

    B. Revised Regulations

    1. Revisions to the following regulations or sections in 25 PA Code, article III:

    a. Chapter 121 (General Provisions), section 121.1.

    b. Chapter 123 (Sulfur Compound Emissions), sections 123.22(a) through (e) inclusive.

    c. Chapter 127 (Construction, Modification, Reactivation, and Operation of Sources), subchapter I (Plan Approval and Operating Permit Fees), section 127.701.

    d. Chapter 129 (Standards for Sources), (Sources of VOCs), sections 129.51, 129.67, and 129.77.

    e. Chapter 130 (Standards for Products), subchapter D (Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents), section 130.703.

    f. Chapter 139 (Sampling and Testing), subchapter A (Sampling and Testing Methods and Procedures—General), section 139.4.

    g. Chapter 139 (Sampling and Testing), subchapter A (Sampling and Testing Methods and Procedures—Stationary Sources), section 139.16.

    2. Revisions to Allegheny County article XXI:

    a. Part A (General), sections 2101.10 and 2101.20.

    b. Part B (Permits Generally), sections 2102.04, 2102.06, 2102.08 and 2102.10.

    c. Part E (Source Emission and Operating Standards), subpart 1—VOC Sources, sections 2105.10 and 2105.11.

    d. Part E (Source Emission and Operating Standards), subpart 5—Open Burning and Abrasive Blasting Sources, section 2105.50.

    C. Removed Regulations

    In 25 PA Code article III, chapter 130 (Standards for Products), subchapter A (Portable Fuel Containers), sections 130.101 through 130.108 inclusive have been removed.

    II. EPA Action

    In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of July 1, 2016 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.2020(b).

    EPA is revising our 40 CFR part 52 “Identification of Plan” for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding incorporation by reference, § 52.2020(b). EPA is revising § 52.2020(b)(1) to clarify that all SIP revisions listed in paragraphs (c) and (d), regardless of inclusion in the most recent “update to the SIP compilation,” are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking in which EPA approved the SIP revision, consistent with following our “Approval and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Revised Format of 40 CFR part 52 for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference,” effective May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968). EPA is revising § 52.2020(b)(2) to clarify references to other portions of paragraph (b) with paragraph (b)(2). EPA is revising paragraph (b)(3) to update address and contact information.

    In the table for paragraph 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1), EPA is taking the following action:

    Rearrange entries in chapter 123 (Standards for Contaminants), (Sulfur Compound Emissions), section 123.22 (a) through 123.22(e).

    EPA has further determined that the entries found in the tables of paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1), and (e)(2) are correct in the CFR and need no additional editing at this time.

    III. Good Cause Exemption

    EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously EPA approved regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and federally effective prior to July 1, 2016. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • 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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 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 rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Pennsylvania SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for Pennsylvania.

    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: January 18, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority for citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. Section 52.2020 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (b); and b. In paragraph (c)(1), revising the entries under “Chapter 123—Standards for Contaminants,” “Sulfur Compound Emission”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to July 1, 2016, were approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with the EPA approval dates after July 1, 2016 for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the state implementation plan and for incorporation by reference into the plan as it is contained in this section, and will be considered by the Director of the Federal Register for approval in the next update to the SIP compilation.

    (2)(i) EPA Region III certifies that the following materials provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated Commonwealth rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the state implementation plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section:

    (A) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)-1. PA Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP); 2. PA Department of Transportation (PA DOT).”

    (B) Materials in Notebook “1. 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(2)—Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD); 2. 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(3)—Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS).”

    (ii) EPA Region III certifies that the following materials provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated Commonwealth source-specific requirements which have been approved as part of the state implementation plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph(b)(1) of this section. No additional revisions were made between April 1, 2013 and July 1, 2016:

    (A) [Reserved]

    (B) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)—Source-specific Requirements—Volume 1, Part 1.”

    (C) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)—Source-specific Requirements—Volume 1, Part 2.”

    (D) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)—Source-specific Requirements—Volume 2, Part 1.”

    (E) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)—Source-specific Requirements—Volume 2, Part 2.”

    (F) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)—Source-specific Requirements—Volume 3.”

    (G) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)—Source-specific Requirements—Volume 4.”

    (H) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)—Source-specific Requirements—Volume 5.”

    (I) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1)—Source-specific Requirements—Volume 6.”

    (J) Materials in Notebook “40 CFR 52.2020(d)(2)-(d)(4)—Source-specific Requirements.”

    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the state implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. To obtain the material, please call the Regional Office at (215) 814-3376. You may also inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to July 1, 2016 for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    State citation Title/subject State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Additional
  • explanation/
  • § 52.2063 citation
  • Title 25—Environmental Protection Article III—Air Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 123—Standards for Contaminants *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sulfur Compound Emissions Section 123.21 General 3/20/72 5/31/72, 37 FR 10842 (c)(1). Section 123.22(a) Combustion units. [General provisions—air basins and non-air basins] 02/09/13 07/10/14, 79 FR 39333 Amended sections 123.22(a) 123.22(b), 123.22(c), 123.22(d), and 123.22(e). 123.22(b) Combustion units—Erie Air Basin 08/01/79 08/08/79, 44 FR 46465 (c)(20); correction published 1/23/80 (45 FR 5303). 123.22(b) Combustion units—Erie Air Basin 02/09/13 07/10/14, 79 FR 39333 Amended sections 123.22(a) 123.22(b), 123.22(c), 123.22(d), and 123.22(e). 123.22(c) Combustion units—Upper Beaver Valley Air Basin 08/21/82 07/05/83, 48 FR 30630 (c)(53). 123.22(c) Combustion units—Upper Beaver Valley Air Basin 02/09/13 07/10/14, 79 FR 39333 Amended sections 123.22(a) 123.22(b), 123.22(c), 123.22(d), and 123.22(e). 123.22(d) Combustion units—Lower Beaver Valley Air Basin 01/01/81 12/16/81, 46 FR 61267 (c)(40). 123.22(d) Combustion units—Lower Beaver Valley Air Basin 02/09/13 07/10/14, 79 FR 39333 Amended sections 123.22(a) 123.22(b), 123.22(c), 123.22(d), and 123.22(e). 123.22(e) Combustion units—Southeast PA Air Basin 10/01/78 06/04/79, 44 FR 31980 (c)(18). 123.22(e) Combustion units—Southeast PA Air Basin 02/09/13 07/10/14, 79 FR 39333 Amended sections 123.22(a) 123.22(b), 123.22(c), 123.22(d), and 123.22(e). Section 123.22(f) Combustion units—Sampling and testing 02/09/13 07/10/14 New section. Section 123.22(g) Combustion units—Recordkeeping and reporting 02/09/13 07/10/14, 79 FR 39333 New section. Figure 4 [Graph] Sulfur Oxides—Combustion Units 3/20/72 5/31/72, 37 FR 10842 (c)(1). Section 123.24 Primary zinc smelters 8/11/75 4/30/76, 41 FR 18077 (c)(14). Section 123.25 Monitoring requirements 10/27/90 6/30/93, 58 FR 34911 (c)(81). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-10919 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0158; A-1-FRL-9961-72-Region 1] Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes; CT AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of adequacy.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that it has found that the 2017 motor vehicle emission budgets for the Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, Connecticut must use these motor vehicle emissions budgets for future transportation conformity determinations. These budgets were contained in the January 17, 2017 attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This finding is effective June 15, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1660, fax number (617) 918-0660, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region 1 sent a letter to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) on March 20, 2017 stating that the 2017 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are adequate. CT DEEP submitted the budgets on January 17, 2017, as part of its attainment demonstration SIP for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This submittal was announced on EPA's conformity Web site, and received no comments. (See https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/adequacy-review-state-implementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity. Once there, click on “What SIP submissions are currently under EPA adequacy review?”)

    The 2017 MVEBs, in tons per summer day (tpsd), for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for Greater Connecticut, are as follows:

    2017 Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Greater Connecticut Area VOC
  • (tpsd)
  • NOX
  • (tpsd)
  • Year 2017 15.9 22.2

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, conformity final rule preamble starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these resources while making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

    Connecticut's January 17, 2017 SIP revision also includes 2017 MVEBs for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (Southwest Connecticut) nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, we are not able to evaluate the budgets for the Southwest Connecticut nonattainment area at this time since Connecticut DEEP has not yet submitted its reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration SIPs for this area. EPA will not take action, nor make an adequacy determination, on MVEBs for the 2008 ozone standard for the Southwest Connecticut nonattainment area, until a SIP revision meeting the requirements for reasonable further progress or an attainment demonstration is submitted for that nonattainment area.

    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.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: April 10, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11222 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0064; FRL-9962-77-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revisions to Allegheny County Health Department Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state implementation plan (SIP). The revisions pertain to administrative and definition amendments made to Allegheny County Health Department's (ACHD) Rules and Regulations Article XXI, Air Pollution Control. The amendments updated the name of the Bureau of Environmental Quality to the Bureau of Environmental Health and revised the definition of “County Executive” to agree with the definition in the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter. EPA is approving these revisions to Article XXI in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 31, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 30, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0064 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, 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 15, 2016, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted, on behalf of Allegheny County, a formal revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.

    I. Background

    The SIP revision consists of administrative and definition amendments to ACHD's Rules and Regulations Article XXI, Air Pollution Control. These amendments were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) as a formal revision to the Pennsylvania SIP, on behalf of Allegheny County. The regulations were adopted by the ACHD.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    The December 15, 2016 SIP revision submittal includes amended versions of ACHD's Rules and Regulations Article XXI, Air Pollution Control, section 2101.07 paragraph (a), Administration and Organization—Administration, and section 2101.20, Definitions. Pennsylvania requests that EPA approve this submittal so that these amended regulations become part of the Pennsylvania SIP. The amendment to section 2101.07 paragraph (a) changed the name of the “Allegheny County Health Department Bureau of Environmental Quality” to the “Allegheny County Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health.” The amendment to section 2101.20 updates the definition of “County Executive” from the “Chief Executive of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania” to “the Chief Executive of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, as defined in the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter.”

    EPA's review of this material indicates the December 15, 2016 submittal is approvable as it meets requirements of the CAA under section 110(a) and contains only minor administrative changes to regulations that were previously included in the Pennsylvania SIP. None of these changes affects emissions of air pollutants, and none of the changes will interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirements in the CAA. Thus, EPA finds the revision approvable specifically for section 110(1) of the CAA.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Pennsylvania SIP revision for Allegheny County, which was submitted on December 15, 2016. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on July 31, 2017 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 30, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must 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.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to ACHD's Rules and Regulations Article XXI, Air Pollution Control, section 2101.07 paragraph (a), Administration and Organization—Administration and section 2101.20, Definitions discussed in Section II of this preamble. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 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 today's 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 action.

    This action to approve Revisions to Allegheny County Health Department Rules as part of the Pennsylvania SIP 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, Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 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 NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(2) is amended by revising an entry for “2101.07 (Except paragraphs .07.c.2 and c.8)” and adding an entry in numerical order“2101.20” under “Part A—General”.

    The revision and addition read as follows:

    § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    Article XX or XXI citation Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Additional explanation/
  • § 52.2063 citation
  • Part A—General *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2101.07 (Except paragraphs .07.c.2 and c.8) Administration and Organization 06/19/15 05/31/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revised name of Allegheny County Health Department Bureau of Environmental Quality to Allegheny County Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health. Previous approval 11/14/02, 67 FR 68935 (c)(192) *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2101.20 Definitions 06/19/15 05/31/17 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revised definition of “County Executive” to mean “the Chief Executive of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, as defined in the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter”. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-10921 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0206; FRL-9958-84-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Air Permit Procedure Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving severable portions of three revisions to the Louisiana New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). Specifically, we are finalizing approval of provisions contained within the Chapter 5 air construction permit rules as initially submitted on November 15, 1993, November 10, 1994, and November 9, 2007. We are withdrawing our proposed disapproval of LAC 33:III.501.B.1.d, LAC 33:III.513.A.1, and LAC 33:III.531.A.1. because the LDEQ withdrew these sections from our consideration on April 19, 2017.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0206. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Kordzi, (214) 665-7520, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our November 22, 2016, proposal (81 FR 83771). In that document, we proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove severable portions of four revisions to the Louisiana New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). We are finalizing our proposed action to a full approval of severable portions of three revisions as listed in Section II below to the Louisiana NSR SIP submitted by LDEQ. We are withdrawing our proposed disapproval of LAC 33:III.501.B.1.d, LAC 33:III.513.A.1, and LAC 33:III.531.A.1. because the LDEQ withdrew these sections from our consideration by letter dated April 19, 2017.

    No comments were received from LDEQ or the public on the proposal during the public notice and comment period.

    II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the revisions to the Louisiana SIP that were proposed for approval in our November 22, 2016, proposal (81 FR 83771) as discussed below. This final action includes SIP submittals from the State of Louisiana submitted on November 15, 1993, November 10, 1994, and November 9, 2007.

    The approved revisions provide in general: (1) Rule clarification; (2) rule consistency with Federal rules; (3) establishment of permit modification procedures; (4) establishment of reopening procedures: and (5) establishment of notification procedures for the notification of other states of Louisiana PSD permit actions. Specifically, we are approving revisions to the Louisiana SIP pertaining to the following sections:

    • LAC 33:III.525 as submitted on November 15, 1993.

    • LAC 33:III.527 as submitted on November 15, 1993, and November 10, 1994.

    • LAC 33:III.529 as submitted on November 15, 1993.

    • LAC 33:III.531 as submitted on November 15, 1993, and November 9, 2007.

    • The EPA is withdrawing our proposed disapproval of LAC 33:III.501.B.1.d, LAC 33:III513.A.1, and LAC 33:III531.A.1. The LDEQ withdrew these sections from our consideration by letter dated April 19, 2017; as such, they are no longer in front of us for action.

    We are taking this final action under section 110 and parts C and D of the Act.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to act on state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This final action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because the portion of the rules that are final for approval do not contain any information collection activities.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The approved portion of this action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action approves regulatory citations that incorporate notification requirements to government entities consistent with federal law, significant and minor permit modification criteria, and permit reopening criteria.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action approves specific citations that incorporate notification requirements to government entities consistent with federal law, significant and minor permit modification criteria, and permit reopening criteria. It therefore will have no impact on small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action approves specific citations that incorporate notification requirements to government entities consistent with federal law, significant and minor permit modification criteria, and permit reopening criteria. There are no requirements or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves specific citations that incorporate notification requirements to government entities consistent with federal law, significant and minor permit modification criteria, and permit reopening criteria.

    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it approves specific citations that incorporate notification requirements to government entities consistent with federal law, significant and minor permit modification criteria, and permit reopening criteria.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    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 27, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 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 T—Louisiana 2. In § 52.970(c), the table titled “EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP” is amended by adding entries in numerical order for Sections 525, 527, 529, and 531 to read as follows:
    § 52.970 Identification of plan

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP State citation Title/subject State
  • approval date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 525 Minor Modifications 11/20/1993 5/31/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] The SIP does not include LAC 33:III.525.A.2., B.2.c, B.3., B.4, B.5.a.-d., B.6., B.7., and B.8. Section 527 Significant Modifications 11/20/1994 5/31/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] The SIP does not include LAC 33:III. 527.B.5. Section 529 Reopenings for Cause 11/20/1993 5/31/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] The SIP does not include LAC 33:III.529.B., B.1., B.2., B.3., and B.4. Section 531 Public Notice and Affected State Notice 10/20/2006 5/31/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] The SIP does not include LAC 33:III.531.A.1., A.2., A.3., A.4., B.1.a., B.1.b., and B.1.c. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-10955 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0044; FRL-9962-72-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Redesignation of the Belding Area in Ionia County to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State of Michigan's request to revise the designation of (redesignate) the Belding nonattainment area (Belding) to attainment of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) for lead. EPA is also approving the maintenance plan and related elements of the redesignation. EPA is approving reasonably available control measure (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT) measures and a comprehensive emissions inventory as meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. EPA is taking these actions in accordance with the CAA and EPA's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective July 31, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 30, 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-R05-OAR-2016-0044 at http://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, 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Why is EPA concerned about lead? II. What is the background for these actions? III. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment? IV. What is EPA's analysis of Michigan's request? V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Why is EPA concerned about lead?

    Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment and present in some manufactured products. However, Pb has serious public health effects and depending on the level of exposure can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of Pb, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits and lowered intelligence quotient. The major sources of Pb for air emissions have historically been from fuels used in on-road motor vehicles (such as cars and trucks) and industrial sources. As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts to remove Pb from on-road motor vehicle gasoline, emissions of Pb from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of Pb in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999.

    II. What is the background for these actions?

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established the 2008 primary and secondary Pb NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year period. 40 CFR 50.16.

    On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA completed its initial air quality designations and classifications for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009. The designations became effective on December 31, 2010. In Michigan, EPA designated a portion of Ionia County, specifically a portion of the city of Belding, as nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 40 CFR 81.336.

    On January 12, 2016, Michigan requested EPA to designate the Belding portion of Ionia County as attainment of the Pb NAAQS. Michigan documented its request meets the redesignation criteria of CAA section 107.

    Michigan found that the Mueller Industries, Inc. (Mueller) facility in Belding, Michigan, is the sole source of Pb emissions in the area. Mueller's Belding facility produces brass rods used to produce plumbing fittings and fixtures and other products.

    III. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

    The requirements for redesignating an area from nonattainment to attainment are found in CAA section 107 (d)(3)(E). There are five criteria for redesignating an area. First, the Administrator must determine that the entire area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data. Second, the Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the area under CAA section 110(k). The third criterion is for the Administrator to determine that the air quality improvement is the result of permanent and enforceable emission reductions. Fourth, the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan meeting the CAA section 175A requirements. The fifth criterion is that the state has met all the redesignation requirements of CAA section 110 and part D.

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of Michigan's request? A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation 1. The Area Has Attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i))

    On July 24, 2015, EPA determined that the Belding, Michigan nonattainment area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 80 FR 43956. EPA made its clean data determination based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2012-2014 period. The Belding area attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS, with a design value of 0.06 µg/m3 for 2012-2014.

    EPA has reviewed the current monitoring data for Ionia County, Michigan. The 2013-2015 design values are 0.06 µg/m3 for monitor 26-067-0002, 545 Reed Street in Belding, and 0.05 µg/m3 for monitor 26-067-0003, 509 Merrick Street in Belding. The highest monitored value was 0.06 µg/m3 for monitor 26-067-0002 in 2013. Current monitoring data indicate that the Belding area continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v))

    EPA determines that Michigan has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Belding area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). In addition, with the exceptions of the RACM/RACT requirements under section 172(c)(1) and the emissions inventory under section 172(c)(3), all applicable requirements of the Michigan SIP for purposes of redesignation have either been approved or have been suspended, by either a clean data determination or determination of attainment. EPA is also approving Michigan's 2013 emissions inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory requirement as well as approving the RACM provisions as meeting the section 172(c)(1) requirement. Thus, we are determining that the Michigan submission meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA, in accordance with sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

    In making these determinations, EPA has ascertained which SIP requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and concluded that the Michigan SIP includes measures meeting those requirements and that they are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.

    a. Michigan Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Redesignation of the Belding Area Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements

    Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other things, must: (1) Include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; (2) provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; (4) include provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; (5) include criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; (6) include provisions for air quality modeling; and (7) provide for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state.

    EPA interprets the “applicable” requirements for an area's redesignation to be those requirements linked with a particular area's nonattainment designation. Therefore, EPA believes that the section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status, such as the “infrastructure SIP” elements of section 110(a)(2), are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment, and thus EPA does not interpret such requirements to be relevant applicable requirements to evaluate in a redesignation. For example, the requirement to submit state plans addressing interstate transport obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state, and thus are not applicable requirements to be evaluated in the redesignation context.

    EPA has applied this interpretation consistently in many redesignations for decades. See e.g., 81 FR 44210 (July 7, 2016) (final redesignation for the Sullivan County, Tennessee area); 79 FR 43655 (July 28, 2014) (final redesignation for Bellefontaine, Ohio Pb nonattainment area); 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997) (proposed and final redesignation for Reading, Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (final redesignation for Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio ozone nonattainment area); and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (final redesignation of Tampa, Florida ozone nonattainment area). See also 65 FR 37879, 37890 (June 19, 2000) (discussing this issue in final redesignation of Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone nonattainment area); 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001) (final redesignation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone nonattainment area).

    EPA has reviewed the Michigan SIP and has determined that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent the requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions of Michigan's SIP addressing section 110 requirements, including provisions addressing Pb, at 40 CFR 52.1170.

    On April 3, 2012, and supplemented on August 9, 2013, and September 19, 2013, Michigan submitted its infrastructure SIP elements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS as required by CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA approved Michigan's infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on July 16, 2014. 79 FR 41439. The requirements of section 110(a)(2) are statewide requirements that are not linked to the Pb nonattainment status of the Belding area or Michigan's redesignation request.

    ii. Part D Requirements

    EPA determined that upon approval of the base year emissions inventories and RACM provisions discussed in this rulemaking, the Michigan SIP will meet the applicable SIP requirements for the Belding area applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.

    (1) Section 172 Requirements

    Section 172(c) sets out general nonattainment plan requirements. A thorough discussion of these requirements can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (“General Preamble”). EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the General Preamble, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard. 57 FR 13564. EPA noted that the requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP) and other measures designed to provide for an area's attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning requirements “have no meaning” for an area that has already attained the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the Calcagni Memorandum.

    EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy. Under the Clean Data Policy, EPA promulgates a determination of attainment, published in the Federal Register and subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, and this determination formally suspends a state's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). The Clean Data Policy has been codified in regulations regarding the implementation of the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). The Clean Data Policy has also been specifically applied in a number of Pb nonattainment areas where EPA has determined that the area is attaining the Pb NAAQS. 79 FR 46212 (August 7, 2014) (proposed determination of attainment of Lyons, Pennsylvania Pb nonattainment area); 80 FR 51127 (determination of attainment of Eagan, Minnesota Pb nonattainment area). EPA finalized a Clean Data Determination under this policy for the Belding Pb nonattainment area on July 24, 2015. 80 FR 43956.

    EPA's long-standing interpretation regarding the applicability of section 172(c)'s attainment planning requirements for an area that is attaining a NAAQS applies in this redesignation of the Belding Pb nonattainment area as well, except for the applicability of the requirement to implement all reasonably available control measures under section 172(c)(1). On July 14, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (6th Circuit) ruled that to meet the requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), states are required to submit plans addressing RACM/RACT under section 172(c)(1) and EPA is required to approve those plans prior to redesignating the area, regardless of whether the area is attaining the standard. Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015). As Michigan is within the jurisdiction of the 6th Circuit, EPA is acting in accordance with the Sierra Club decision by approving RACM provisions in parallel with this redesignation action.1

    1 Although the approach being implemented here is inconsistent with the Agency's longstanding national policy, such deviation is required in order to act in accordance with a Circuit Court decision. Consistent with 40 CFR 56.5(b), the Region does not need to seek concurrence from EPA Headquarters for such deviation in these circumstances. 81 FR 51102 (August 3, 2016).

    Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. Under this requirement, a state must consider all available control measures, including reductions that area available from adopting RACT on existing sources, for a nonattainment area and adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available in the area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. EPA is today approving Michigan's RACM submission. Therefore, Michigan has met its requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

    The remaining section 172(c) “attainment planning” requirements are not applicable for purposes of evaluating Michigan's redesignation request. Specifically, the RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2), which is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment, the requirement to submit section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, which are measures to be taken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress to attainment, and section 172(c)(6)'s requirement that the SIP contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the standard, are not applicable requirements that Michigan must meet here because the Belding area has monitored attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As noted, EPA issued a determination of attainment (or clean data determination) for the Belding area in July 2015, which formally suspended the obligation to submit any of the attainment planning SIPs. 80 FR 43956 (July 24, 2015).

    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. Michigan submitted 2009, 2011, and 2013 emission inventories along with its redesignation request. The 2013 inventory can be used as the most accurate and current inventory. As discussed in section III.B., EPA is approving the 2013 base year inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement for the Belding area.

    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Michigan's current NSR program on December 16, 2013. 78 FR 76064. In addition, the state's maintenance plan does not rely nonattainment NSR, therefore having a fully approved NSR program is not an applicable requirement, but that, nonetheless, EPA has approved the state's program.2

    2 A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.”

    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. No additional measures are needed to provide for attainment because attainment has been reached.

    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). EPA finds that the Michigan SIP meets the section 110(a)(2) applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

    (2) Section 176 Conformity Requirements

    CAA section 176(c) requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities, including highway and transit projects, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). Considering the elimination of Pb additives in gasoline, transportation conformity does not apply to the Pb NAAQS. 73 FR 66964, 67043 n.120. EPA approved Michigan's general conformity SIP on December 18, 1996. 61 FR 66607.

    b. Michigan Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    Upon final approval of Michigan's comprehensive 2013 emissions inventories and approval of RACM for the Belding Pb area, EPA will have fully approved the Michigan SIP for the Belding area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of the September 4, 1992, Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment: Policy Memorandum (Calcagni memorandum)); Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)). EPA also relies on measures approved in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413 (May 12, 2003) (approving I/M program for St. Louis) and 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Michigan has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, required SIP provisions addressing the 2008 Pb standards. Of the CAA requirements applicable to this redesignation request, only two remain—the emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) and the RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1).

    EPA is approving the submitted Mueller emission controls as RACM/RACT and Michigan's 2013 emissions inventories for the Belding area as meeting the requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3). There are no SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved in the Belding, Michigan area under section 110(k) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).

    3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIPs and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))

    To support the revision of an area's designation from nonattainment to attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. The permanent and enforceable emission reductions result from the implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions.

    Michigan identified Mueller as the lone source of Pb emissions near the nonattainment area. Mueller produces brass rods that are used in making plumbing fixtures and fittings among other products at its facility in Belding, Michigan. Mueller implemented various control measures on its west chip and east chip dryers that result in decreased emissions. In 2010, it stopped operating its uncontrolled east chip dryer and installed controls on its west chip dryer. A permanent and enforceable Permit to Install number 16-11 (PTI 16-11) was issued on October 20, 2011, and revised on March 15, 2012, which limits Pb emissions and requires certain controls for the east and west chip dryers. PTI 16-11 requires each chip dryer to operate a cyclone, a thermal oxidizer, a wet scrubber, and a demister to control emissions. Operation of the east chip dryer is allowed once the required controls are installed. The west chip dryer stack height was increased to 122 feet in January 2012. The east chip dryer stack height is also required to be 122 feet. Increasing the stack height creates more dispersion of the exhaust, which can reduce the maximum concentration. The controls and emission limits in PTI 16-11 are permanent and enforceable. Michigan analyzed the control measures added in PTI 16-11 and found that these measures brought the Belding area into attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The monitoring data in the Belding area, as detailed in III.A.1, show the area has met and continues to meet the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    In addition, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g-6) prohibits the use of Pb in plumbing fittings or fixtures. Effective January 4, 2014, plumbing fittings and fixtures must go from a weighted average of 8.0 percent Pb to 0.25 percent Pb. This reduction requires Mueller to reduce the amount of Pb used in its brass rod production, which is expected to continue the decrease in its Pb emissions.

    4. Michigan Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))

    In conjunction with its request to designate the Belding nonattainment area to attainment, Michigan requested a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in the area through 2025.

    a. What is required in a maintenance plan?

    The required elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment are contained in section 175A of the CAA. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the subsequent 10 years.

    To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future Pb violations.

    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan should address the following items: The attainment emissions inventory, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the 10 years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.

    Michigan's maintenance plan shows that the Belding area's emissions will remain below the attainment year levels through 2025.

    b. Attainment Inventory

    Michigan provided Pb emissions inventories for the nonattainment years (2009 and 2011), attainment year (2013), and future year (2025). The Pb emissions for Mueller's Belding, Michigan facility are listed in Table 1.

    Table 1—Mueller Lead Emissions 2009 2,277.73 pounds nonattainment year. 2011 1,402.93 pounds nonattainment year. 2013 1,153.15 pounds attainment year. 2025 864 pounds future year.

    Michigan identified Mueller as the lone source of Pb emissions in the vicinity of the Belding nonattainment area. Thus, the emissions inventories provided are adequate for the Belding area.

    c. Demonstration of Maintenance

    Michigan included a section 175(A) maintenance plan in its submission. Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation”. EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance “for a period of ten years following redesignation”. Calcagni memorandum at 9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. Calcagni memorandum at 9-10.

    A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003). Michigan has provided both an emissions inventory as well as air dispersion modeling of the emission limits established in PTI 16-11 to demonstrate that the area should maintain the standard into the future. A summary of the air dispersion modeling for Mueller was included in Michigan's submissions. The modeling evaluated the Consent Order 9-2011 and PTI 16-11 revisions. Michigan used the American Meteorology Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model version 11103. That analysis yielded a maximum impact of 0.13 µg/m3, which is below the 2008 Pb NAAQS of 0.15 µg/m3. This modeling analysis is valid for the Belding redesignation as the Mueller control revisions are responsible for the emission reductions that brought the area into attainment. Michigan also provided an emissions inventory for an attainment year, 2013, and for a future year, 2025. See Table 1. Michigan is projecting a 25 percent decrease below attainment year emissions Pb emissions from the source due to the reduction in Pb usage in brass manufacturing. Under the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, plumbing fittings and fixtures must go from a weighted average of 8.0 percent Pb to 0.25 percent Pb, driving the expected Pb decreases from Mueller.

    Michigan's maintenance plan submission shows that the Belding area's Pb emissions will remain below the attainment year inventories through 2025. The reductions in Pb emissions in Belding result from the permeant and enforceable control measures for Mueller, the lone Pb source in the area. Monitoring data show the Belding area ambient Pb concentrations declined following the Mueller emission reductions. It is reasonable to expect the emissions to remain at the reduced levels because of the control measures implemented. Thus, it is reasonable to expect the Belding area will continue to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS through 2027.

    EPA believes that Michigan's submission demonstrates that the area will continue to maintain the 2008 Pb NAAQS at least through 2027. This is because the 2027 emissions should remain at the same level as projected for 2025 due to the permanent and enforceable limits in PTI 16-11 along with additional reductions from other rules. In addition, the air dispersion modeling indicates that with the PTI 16-11 controls the Belding area ambient Pb concentration will be below the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Thus, EPA is approving the redesignation request and maintenance plans based on a showing, in accordance with section 175A, that the Michigan's maintenance plan provides for maintenance for at least 10 years after redesignation.

    d. Monitoring Network

    Michigan will monitor ambient Pb levels during the 10 year maintenance period in the Belding area to confirm continued maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA determines that the Belding, Michigan area Pb monitoring network is adequate to confirm maintenance. Michigan commits to continue to operate an adequate monitoring network.

    e. Verification of Continued Attainment

    Michigan will also continue to enter its air monitoring data into the Air Quality System in accordance with Federal guidelines. It will also submit periodic emissions inventories to EPA as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule to verify continued attainment. 67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002. Both actions will help to verify continued attainment in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    f. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. CAA section 175A requires that the maintenance plan include such contingency measures. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment. Section 175A(d) of the CAA.

    Michigan commits to implement one or more contingency measures should the 2008 Pb NAAQS be violated during the maintenance period. The contingency measures are:

    i. Increase inspection frequency of Mueller to twice per year, beginning three months after a quality-assured violation of the NAAQS at a Belding, Michigan air monitoring site. The increased inspection frequency will remain in place until the quality-assured Pb ambient air monitored levels show NAAQS compliance on a 3-year rolling average.

    ii. Require Mueller to submit an enhanced preventative maintenance/malfunction abatement plan within six months after a quality-assured violation of the NAAQS at a Belding, Michigan air monitoring site.

    iii. Require Mueller to reassess control strategies that further limit Pb emissions within one year of a quality-assured violation of the NAAQS at a Belding, Michigan air monitoring site.

    Michigan will also consider any other potential contingency measures at the time of the selection.

    EPA finds that Michigan's maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.

    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Michigan commits to submit to the EPA an updated Pb maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of the Belding area to cover an additional 10 year period beyond the initial 10 year maintenance period.

    EPA is approving Michigan's 2008 Pb maintenance plan for the Belding area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A.

    B. Comprehensive Emissions Inventory

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current emissions inventory. Michigan provided such an inventory in its submission.

    Michigan identified Mueller as the lone source of Pb emissions in the vicinity of the Belding nonattainment area. Thus, it provided the emissions for Mueller that represent the emissions of the Belding area. In 2013, Pb emissions were 1,153.15 pounds. See Table 1.

    EPA approves the Pb emissions inventories submitted by Michigan in January 2016 as fully meeting the comprehensive inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the Belding area for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    C. RACM Requirements

    Based on the 6th Circuit decision, CAA Section 172(c)(1) requires areas to have approved RACM/RACT provisions to be redesignated. PTI 16-11 added legally enforceable emission controls on Mueller considered to be RACT for Pb. PTI 16-11 requires each Mueller chip dryer to operate a cyclone, a thermal oxidizer, a wet scrubber, and a demister to control emissions. The west chip dryer stack height was increased to 122 feet in January 2012. The east chip dryer stack height is also required to be 122 feet. EPA is approving the emission controls as required by PTI 16-11 as satisfying the RACT requirement of Section 172(c)(1).

    V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA has determined that the Belding area is attaining the 2008 Pb NAAQS and that the area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus approving the requests from Michigan to change the legal designation of the Belding area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 Pb standard. EPA is approving Michigan's maintenance plan for the Belding area as a revision to the Michigan SIP because the plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. EPA is approving the emission controls in PTI 16-11 as required by Consent Order 9-2011 as meeting the RACM/RACT requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1). EPA is approving the 2013 emissions inventory as meeting the comprehensive emissions inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA is taking these actions in accordance with the CAA and EPA's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 31, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by June 30, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. 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. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective July 31, 2017.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead.

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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.

    2. In § 52.1170 the table in paragraph (e) is amended: a. Under “Emissions Inventories” by adding an entry for “2008 lead (Pb) 2013 base year” after the entry for “1997 annual PM2.5 2005 base year;” and b. Under “Maintenance Plans” by adding an entry for “2008 lead (Pb)” after the entry for “2006 24-Hour PM2.5.”

    The additions read as follows:

    § 52.1170 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory And Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Name of
  • nonregulatory SIP
  • provision
  • Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Emissions Inventories *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2008 lead (Pb) 2013 base year Belding area (Ionia County, part) 1/12/2016 5/31/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Maintenance Plans *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2008 lead (Pb) Belding area (Ionia County, part) 1/12/2016 5/31/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. Section 52.1188 is amended by adding paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 52.1188 Control strategy: Lead (Pb).

    (b) Michigan's 2013 lead emissions inventory for the Belding area as submitted on January 12, 2016, satisfying the emission inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for the Belding area.

    (c) Approval. The 2008 lead maintenance plan for the Belding, Michigan nonattainment area has been approved as submitted on January 12, 2016.

    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    5. Section 81.323 is amended by revising the entry for Belding, MI in the table entitled “Michigan—2008 Lead NAAQS” to read as follows:
    § 81.323 Michigan. Michigan—2008 Lead NAAQS Designated area Designation for the 2008 NAAQS a Date 1 Type Belding, MI: Ionia County (part) 5/31/2017 Attainment. The area bounded by the following coordinates: Southeast corner by latitude 43.0956705 N and longitude 85.2130771 W; southwest corner (intersection of S. Broas St. and W. Washington St.) by latitude 43.0960358 N and longitude 85.2324027 W; northeast corner by latitude 43.1074942 N and longitude 85.2132313 W; western boundary 1 (intersection of W. Ellis St. and the vertical extension of S. Broas St.) by latitude 43.1033277 N and longitude 85.2322553 W; western boundary 2 (intersection of W. Ellis St. and N. Bridge St.) by latitude 43.1033911 N and longitude 85.2278464 W; western boundary 3 (intersection of N. Bridge St. and Earle St.) by latitude 43.1074479 N and longitude 85.2279722 W. *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10928 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0395; FRL-9963-01-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Cleveland Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 29, 2016, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the partial Cuyahoga County nonattainment area (known as and referred to as the Cleveland area) to attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for lead. EPA finds that the Cleveland area meets the requirements for redesignation and is also approving several additional related actions. EPA is approving, as revisions to the Ohio state implementation plan (SIP), reasonably available control measure/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT) requirements, emissions inventory requirements, and the state's plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS through 2030 for the area. EPA is taking these actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective July 31, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0395 at http://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, 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What action is EPA taking? II. Why is EPA concerned about lead? III. What is the background for these actions? IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment? V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request? VI. What are the effects of EPA's actions? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking several actions related to the redesignation of the Cleveland area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is approving Ohio's lead maintenance plan for the Cleveland area as a revision to the Ohio SIP. EPA is also approving RACM/RACT that satisfies 172(c)(1) requirements and is approving the 2013 lead base year emission inventories, which satisfy the requirement in section 172(c)(3) for a current, accurate and comprehensive emission inventory.

    EPA finds that Ohio meets the requirements for redesignation of the Cleveland area to attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus granting Ohio's request to change the designation of the Cleveland area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA's analysis for these actions are discussed in Section V. of today's rulemaking.

    II. Why is EPA concerned about lead?

    Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. However, lead has serious public health effects and depending on the level of exposure can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits and lowered IQ. Today the highest levels of lead in the air are usually found near lead smelters. In Cleveland, the Ferro facility was the primary source of lead in the area. The primary manufacturing process employing lead at the facility is the production of frit. Frits compounds are used for glazing surfaces such as porcelain, ceramic, enamel and glass. The lead raw material used at the Ferro facility is used primarily in leaded glass production.

    III. What is the background for these actions?

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the 1978 NAAQS and established the 2008 primary and secondary lead NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3 based on a maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year period. See 40 CFR 50.16. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published its initial air quality designations and classifications for the 2008 lead NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009. These designations became effective on December 31, 2010.1 The Cleveland area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.336. OEPA submitted its redesignation request to EPA on June 29, 2016.

    1 EPA completed a second round of designations for the 2008 lead NAAQS on November 22, 2011, see 76 FR 72097, and designated one additional area on September 3, 2014. See 79 FR 52205. No additional areas in Ohio were designated as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS after the initial round of designations.

    IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

    The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an applicable SIP for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, or other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

    V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?

    EPA is approving the redesignation of the Cleveland area to attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS and is also approving Ohio's maintenance plan, emissions inventory, and RACM for the area. The bases for these actions follow.

    A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation the Area Has Attained the 2008 Lead NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i))

    In a rulemaking on May 26, 2015, EPA determined that the Cleveland area was attaining the standard with a monitored air quality design value of 0.03 µg/m3 for the period of 2010-2012, well below the standard of 0.15 µg/m3. See 80 FR 29964.

    EPA today is reaffirming that the Cleveland, Ohio area is attaining the 2008 lead NAAQS based on the most current data with a design value equal to or less than 0.15 µg/m3. This finding is based on complete, quality-assured and certified lead monitoring data for the 2013-2015 period. The 2013-2015 design value for the area is 0.02 µg/m3 and preliminary 2014-2016 data indicate that the area is attaining with no violations. The monitoring data for the 3 years (2013-2015) can be found at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends.

    1. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v))

    EPA has determined that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Cleveland area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). In addition, with the exception of the emissions inventory under section 172(c)(3) and RACM/RACT requirements under 172(c)(1), all applicable planning requirements of the Ohio SIP for purposes of redesignation have either been approved or have been suspended by either a clean data determination or determination of attainment. As discussed below, in this action, EPA is approving Ohio's 2013 emissions inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory requirement, as well as approving RACM provisions as meeting the 172(c)(1) requirement. Thus, we are determining that the Ohio submittal meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA, in accordance with sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

    In making these determinations, we have ascertained which SIP requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and concluded that the Ohio SIP includes measures meeting those requirements and that they are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.

    a. Ohio Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Redesignation of the Cleveland Area Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements

    Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other things, must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; include criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state.

    EPA interprets the “applicable” requirements for an area's redesignation to be those requirements linked with a particular area's nonattainment designation. Therefore, we believe that the section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status, such as the “infrastructure SIP” elements of section 110(a)(2), are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment, and thus EPA does not interpret such requirements to be relevant applicable requirements to evaluate in a redesignation. For example, the requirement to submit state plans addressing interstate transport obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state, and thus are not applicable requirements to be evaluated in the redesignation context.

    EPA has applied this interpretation consistently in many redesignations for decades. See e.g., 81 FR 44210 (July 7, 2016) (final redesignation for the Sullivan County, Tennessee area); 79 FR 43655 (July 28, 2014) (final redesignation for Bellefontaine, Ohio lead nonattainment area); 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997) (proposed and final redesignation for Reading, Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (final redesignation for Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio ozone nonattainment area); and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (final redesignation of Tampa, Florida ozone nonattainment area). See also 65 FR 37879, 37890 (June 19, 2000) (discussing this issue in final redesignation of Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone nonattainment area); 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001) (final redesignation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone nonattainment area).

    We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and determined that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions of Ohio's SIP addressing section 110 requirements (including provisions addressing lead), at 40 CFR 52.1870.

    On October 12, 2011, and supplemented on June 7, 2013, Ohio made submittals addressing “infrastructure SIP” elements for the lead NAAQS required under CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA approved the lead infrastructure SIPs in 2014, however, as noted above, the requirements of section 110(a)(2) are statewide requirements that are not linked to the lead nonattainment status of the Cleveland area. Therefore, these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of review of the state's lead redesignation request.

    ii. Part D Requirements

    EPA has determined that upon approval of the base year emissions inventory and RACM provisions discussed in this rulemaking, the Ohio SIP will meet the requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA for the Cleveland lead nonattainment area. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the general nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.

    (1) Section 172 Requirements

    Section 172(c) sets out general nonattainment plan requirements. A thorough discussion of these requirements can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (“General Preamble”). EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the General Preamble, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR at 13564. EPA noted that the requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures designed to provide for an area's attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning requirements “have no meaning” for an area that has already attained the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the Calcagni 2 Memorandum.

    2 September 4, 1992, Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division (EPA), entitled, “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.”

    EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy. Under the Clean Data Policy, EPA promulgates a determination of attainment, published in the Federal Register and subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, and this determination formally suspends a state's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for reasonable further progress (RFP), RACM, and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). The Clean Data Policy has been codified in regulations regarding the implementation of the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. See e.g., 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). The Clean Data Policy has also been specifically applied in a number of lead nonattainment areas where EPA has determined that the area is attaining the lead NAAQS. See, e.g., 79 FR 46212 (August 7, 2014) (proposed determination of attainment of Lyons, Pennsylvania lead nonattainment area); 80 FR 51127 (determination of attainment of Eagan, Minnesota lead nonattainment area). EPA finalized a Clean Data Determination under this policy for the Cleveland lead nonattainment area in 2015. 80 FR 29964 (May 26, 2015).

    EPA's long-standing interpretation regarding the applicability of section 172(c)'s attainment planning requirements for an area that is attaining a NAAQS applies in this redesignation of the Cleveland lead nonattainment area as well, with the exception of the applicability of the requirement to implement all RACM under section 172(c)(1). On July 14, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (6th Circuit) ruled that, in order to meet the requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), states are required to submit plans addressing RACM/RACT under section 172(c)(1) and EPA is required to approve those plans prior to redesignating the area, regardless of whether the area is attaining the standard. Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015). Because Ohio is within the jurisdiction of the 6th Circuit, EPA is acting in accordance with the Sierra Club decision by approving RACM provisions in parallel with this redesignation action.3

    3 Although the approach being implemented here is inconsistent with the Agency's longstanding national policy, such deviation is required in order to act in accordance with a Circuit Court decision. Consistent with 40 CFR 56.5(b), the Region does not need to seek concurrence from EPA Headquarters for such deviation in these circumstances. See also 81 FR 51102 (August 3, 2016).

    Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. Under this requirement, a state must consider all available control measures, including reductions that area available from adopting RACT on existing sources, for a nonattainment area and adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available in the area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. As discussed in further detail below, EPA is today approving Ohio's RACM submission. Therefore, Ohio has met its requirements under CAA section 172(c)(1) and section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

    As noted above, the remaining section 172(c) “attainment planning” requirements are not applicable for purposes of evaluating the state's redesignation request. Specifically, the reasonable further progress (RFP) requirement under section 172(c)(2), which is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment, the requirement to submit section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, which are measures to be taken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress to attainment, and section 172(c)(6)'s requirement that the SIP contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the standard, are not applicable requirements that Ohio must meet here because the Cleveland area has monitored attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. As noted above, EPA issued a determination of attainment (or clean data determination) for the Cleveland area in May 2015, which formally suspended the obligation to submit any of the attainment planning SIPs. 80 FR 29964 (May 26, 2015).

    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. Ohio submitted a 2013 base year emissions inventory along with their redesignation request on June 29, 2016, and requested that the 2013 inventories be used as the most accurate and current inventory. As discussed below in section IV.B., EPA is approving the 2013 base year inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement for the Cleveland area.

    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Ohio's current NSR program on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). In addition, the state's maintenance plan does not rely nonattainment NSR, therefore having a fully approved NSR program is not an applicable requirement, but that, nonetheless, we have approved the state's program.4

    4 A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.”

    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we find that the Ohio SIP meets the section 110(a)(2) applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

    (2) Section 176 Conformity Requirements

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities, including highway and transit projects, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). In light of the elimination of lead additives in gasoline, transportation conformity does not apply to the lead NAAQS. See 73 FR 66964, 67043 n.120. EPA approved Ohio's general conformity SIP on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646).

    b. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    Upon final approval of Ohio's comprehensive 2013 emissions inventories and approval of RACM for the Cleveland lead area, EPA will have fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Cleveland area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. See Calcagni Memorandum at 3); Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). EPA also relies on measures approved in conjunction with a redesignation action. See, e.g., 68 FR 25413 (May 12, 2003) (approving I/M program for St. Louis) and 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) (approving redesignation relying in part on I/M program approval). As discussed in the prior section, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, a number of required SIP provisions addressing the 2008 lead standards. Of the CAA requirements applicable to this redesignation request, only two remain—the emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) and the RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1).

    In today's action, EPA is approving Ohio's 2013 emissions inventories for the Cleveland area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, and approving RACM provisions meeting the requirement of 172(c)(1). No Cleveland area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. Therefore, the Administrator has fully approved the applicable requirements for the Cleveland area under section 110(k) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).

    2. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIPs and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))

    EPA believes that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Cleveland area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions at the Ferro facility. An analysis performed by Ohio identified malfunctions and poor maintenance of Ferro's bag houses (dust collectors) as the primary cause of violations in 2010. The bag houses, which have a normal efficiency of 99%, capture a majority of the lead emissions from the facility. Ohio required Ferro, as part of the permanent and enforceable permit to install, to decrease emission limits for lead and create a preventative maintenance plan (PMP) to maintain the bag house controls at maximum efficiency. The lower emission limits and PMP at Ferro resulted in monitored values well below the standard. Emissions went down 48% from 0.00605 tons per year (tpy) in nonattainment year 2010, to 0.00071 tpy in 2013 after the new emission limits and PMP were implemented (See Table 1). Both the PMP and the emission limit changes are permanent and enforceable through the facility's updated permit to install. In addition to the permit to install, EPA is also approving these measures into the SIP as providing maintenance and as being measures that meet the RACM requirement.

    3. Ohio's Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))

    In conjunction with Ohio's request to redesignate the Cleveland nonattainment area to attainment status, Ohio has submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the area through 2030.

    a. What is required in a maintenance plan?

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten years following the initial ten year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future lead NAAQS violations.

    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan should address the following items: The attainment emissions inventory, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.

    As discussed in detail in the section below, the state's maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the area's emissions inventory and modeling show that the area will remain below the attainment year inventories through 2030, more than ten years after redesignation.

    b. Attainment Inventory

    Ohio developed an emissions inventory for lead for 2013, one of the years in the period during which the Cleveland area monitored attainment of the 2008 lead standard. The attainment level of emissions is summarized in Table 1, along with future maintenance projections.

    c. Demonstration of Maintenance

    Ohio submitted a revision to its lead SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Cleveland area, as required by section 175A of the CAA. Ohio's plan demonstrates maintenance of the 2008 lead standard through 2030 by showing that current and future emissions of lead in the area remain at or below attainment year emission levels, and in addition that the area can show modeled attainment of the standard with the permitted and SIP approved emission limits. EPA is primarily relying on the emissions inventory comparison showing the decline in emissions between 2013 and 2030, but we note that the modeling conducted in 2010 using the permitted emission limits (see docket) also supports the conclusion that they will model attainment in the future.

    As discussed in the section below, the state's maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the area's emissions inventories will remain below the attainment year inventories through 2030.

    Emissions from the Ferro facility's operations are calculated from the amount of lead oxide (tons) used during the facility's leaded glass operations. As shown in Table 1 as the 2010 baseline, the emissions were 0.00605 tons per year (tpy). Production at the Ferro facility is projected to go down slightly in the future based on current and historical trends in leaded glass demand, resulting in a projected decrease in lead emissions. EPA is also approving into the SIP, as part of the maintenance plan and as meeting RACM requirements, the emission limits and PMP provisions needed to attain and maintain the 2008 lead standard as outlined in Ohio's request and provided in the docket which includes a 0.3 tpy combined emissions limit for units P064 through P069 as well as the base control devices and upgrades, in addition the 0.009 tpy limit for P071 and all base control devices and upgrades for units P001, P071, P100, P101, and P951.

    In addition to projected emission reductions for the maintenance year of 2030, Ohio also conducted a modeling analysis to show that there would be no violation of the 2008 lead standard with the emission limits outlined in the permanent and enforceable limits and PMP that are now in place through the permit to install and what EPA is approving as provisions into the maintenance plan portion of Ohio's SIP.

    Table 1—Comparison of 2010, 2013, 2021, and 2030 Lead Emission Totals (tpy) for the Cleveland Area 2010 Baseline
  • (nonattainment year)
  • 2013
  • (attainment)
  • 2021
  • (interim)
  • 2030
  • (maintenance)
  • Safety margin
    0.006050 0.000705 0.000732 0.000511 0.000194
    d. Monitoring Network

    Ohio currently operates one lead monitor in the Cleveland, Ohio area. Ohio's maintenance plan includes a commitment to continue to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS.

    e. Verification of Continued Attainment

    Ohio remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring data and enter all data into the Air Quality System (AQS) in accordance with Federal guidelines. Ohio will use these data, supplemented with additional information as necessary, to assure that the area continues to attain the standard. Ohio will also continue to develop and submit periodic emission inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track future levels of emissions. Both of these actions will help to verify continued attainment in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    f. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.

    Ohio's contingency plan defines a warning level and action level response. The warning level response will trigger when a lead monitor three-month rolling average exceeds 0.135 μg/m3 in the maintenance area. If a warning level response is triggered, Ohio will conduct a study to determine whether the lead values indicate a trend toward exceeding the standard and what control measure would be necessary to reverse the trend within 12 months of the conclusion of the calendar year. The action level response will be prompted by the determination of the warning level study that a reverse of the trend is needed, or by the three-month rolling average exceeding 0.143 μg/m3. The action level response will require Ohio to work with the culpable entity to evaluate and implement the needed control measures to bring the area into attainment within 18 months of the conclusion of the calendar year that triggered the response.

    Currently, no new sources of lead are projected for the Cleveland area, so all control measures would be determined after an analysis of the situation, but could include control devices, secondary controls, or improved housekeeping and maintenance. Ohio commits to continue implementing SIP requirements upon and after redesignation.

    EPA believes that Ohio's contingency measures, as well as the commitment to continue implementing existing SIP requirements, satisfy the pertinent requirements of section 175A(d).

    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the EPA an updated lead maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of the Cleveland area to cover an additional ten year period beyond the initial ten year maintenance period.

    For the reasons set forth above, EPA is approving Ohio's 2008 lead maintenance plan for the Cleveland area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A.

    B. Comprehensive Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory including all lead sources in the nonattainment area. EPA is approving the Ohio 2013 emissions inventory outlined in Table 1 for the Ferro facility as fulfilling this requirement (see docket for full emissions inventory). EPA believes that the emissions inventories are complete and accurate, and meet the requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3).

    C. RACM Requirements

    As discussed above, section 172(c)(1), as interpreted by the 6th Circuit decision, requires areas to have an approved RACM/RACT provision in order to be redesignated. EPA is approving the existing controls and maintenance provisions for the Ferro facility as fulfilling this requirement, including the 0.3 tpy combined emissions limit for units P064 through P069 as well as the base control devices and upgrades, in addition the 0.009 tpy limit for P071 and all base control devices and upgrades for units P001, P071, P100, P101, and P951. The current controls and PMP have brought the area into attainment and constitute RACM, and meets the requirement of CAA section 172(c)(1).

    VI. What are the effects of EPA's actions?

    Approval of this redesignation request changes the official designation of the Cleveland, Ohio area for the 2008 lead NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. This action also approves as revisions to the Ohio SIP for the Cleveland area, the maintenance plan for the 2008 lead standard, Ohio's 2013 emissions inventory for the Cleveland area satisfies the requirement of section 172(c)(3), and approves that the existing limits and PMP in the construction permit satisfies the RACM/RACT 172(c)(1) requirement.

    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 31, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by June 30, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. 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. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective July 31, 2017.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 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 today's 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 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 11, 2017. Cheryl L. Newton, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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.

    2. In § 52.1870 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry for “Lead (2008)” at the end of the section titled “Summary of Criteria Pollutant Maintenance Plan” to read as follows:
    § 52.1870 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Ohio Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Title Applicable geographical or
  • non-attainment area
  • State date EPA approval Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Summary of Criteria Pollutant Maintenance Plan *         *         *         *         *         *         * Lead (2008) Cleveland (partial Cuyahoga County) 6/29/2016 5/31/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] Includes approval of the 2013 lead base year emissions inventory and emission limits and PMP as RACM for the Ferro facility. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. Section 52.1893 is amended by adding paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
    § 52.1893 Control strategy: Lead (Pb).

    (c) Ohio's 2013 lead emissions inventory for the Cleveland area as, as submitted on June 29, 2016, satisfying the emission inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for the Cleveland area.

    (d) Approval—The 2008 lead maintenance plan for the Cleveland, Ohio nonattainment area has been approved as submitted on June 29, 2016.

    (e) EPA is approving the existing controls and maintenance provisions in the permit to install for the Ferro facility including the preventative maintenance plan, 0.3 tpy combined emissions limit for units P064 through P069 as well as the base control devices and upgrades, in addition the 0.009 tpy limit for P071 and all base control devices and upgrades for units P001, P071, P100, P101, and P951 as fulfilling the RACM/RACT 172(c)(1) requirement.

    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    5. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entry for “Cleveland, OH:” in the table entitled “Ohio—2008 Lead NAAQS” to read as follows:
    § 81.336 Ohio. Ohio—2008 Lead NAAQS Designated area Designation for the 2008 NAAQS a Date 1 Type *         *         *         *         *         *         * Cleveland, OH: Cuyahoga County (part) 5/31/2017 Attainment. The portions of Cuyahoga County that are bounded on the west by Washington Park Blvd./Crete Ave./East 49th St., on the east by East 71st St., on the north by Fleet Ave., and on the south by Grant Ave *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 December 31, 2011, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10968 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451; FRL-9963-19-OAR] RIN 2060-AT62 Stay of Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Stay.

    SUMMARY:

    By a letter dated May 5, 2017, the Administrator announced the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of certain requirements in the final rules, “Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” and “Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” both published on August 29, 2016. In this action, the EPA is staying subparts, which were added or revised by the two rules, for 90 days pending reconsideration.

    DATES:

    Title 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX, are stayed from May 31, 2017 until August 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of this document are available on the EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-new-source-performance-standards. Copies of this document are also available at https://www.regulations.gov, at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (888) 627-7764; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed a final rule establishing new source performance standards (NSPS) intended to reduce emissions of landfill gas from new, modified, and reconstructed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, thereby updating standards that were issued in 1996. In a separate action, the Administrator also signed a final rule revising guidelines for reducing emissions from existing MSW landfills, thereby updating the previous emissions guidelines (EG), which also were issued in 1996. The NSPS are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX, and the EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. For further information on these 2016 rules, see 81 FR 59332 and 81 FR 59276 (August 29, 2016).

    On October 27, 2016, a number of interested parties submitted administrative petitions to the EPA seeking reconsideration of various aspects of the 2016 rules pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).1 Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the Administrator shall convene a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period, but within the period for judicial review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the effectiveness of the rule for up to 3 months during such reconsideration.

    1 Copies of these petitions are included in the docket for the 2016 rules, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451.

    In a letter dated May 5, 2017, based on the criteria in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator convened a proceeding for reconsideration. The May 5, 2017, letter announced the convening of an administrative reconsideration proceeding to reconsider the following topics from one petition: (1) Tier 4 surface emission monitoring; (2) annual liquids reporting; (3) corrective action timeline procedures; (4) overlapping applicability with other rules; (5) the definition of cover penetration; and (6) design plan approval. As part of the proceeding, the EPA will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the petitioners and the public an opportunity to comment on the issues identified in that letter. As explained in the letter, the EPA has not taken action on the remaining issues in the petitions for reconsideration. A copy of the letter is included in the dockets for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451.

    The EPA convened a proceeding for reconsideration based on the determination that some of the objections raised in the petition for reconsideration met the criteria set forth in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B), which requires the Administrator to convene a proceeding for reconsideration of a rule when the person raising an objection to a rule can demonstrate: (1) That it was either impractical to raise the objection during the period for public comment or that the grounds for the objection arose after the period for public comment; and (2) that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. In particular, we determined that the tier 4 surface emissions monitoring (SEM) issues raised in the petition for reconsideration met those criteria. The proposed rule included tier 4 SEM as an optional monitoring method; however, the final rule imposed restrictions on the use of tier 4 SEM, e.g., limits on wind speed, the use of wind barriers, and restricting the use of tier 4 SEM to landfills with non-methane organic compounds emission rates between 34 and 50 mega grams per year, that were not included in the proposal. While we believe that the restrictions are appropriate in light of the potential impact of the results of tier 4 SEM, we recognize that they were added without the benefit of public comment. Thus, we find that the petitioners have demonstrated that it was impractical to raise the objection during the period for public comment. We also find that the objection to the restrictions on the use of tier 4 SEM is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Tier 4 SEM can be used as a site-specific methodology for determining whether and when the requirement to install a gas collection and control system is triggered. The restrictions limit an owner's/operator's ability to use tier 4 SEM for those purposes, thereby reducing intended flexibility in the rule. If we had the benefit of public comment on the restrictions, we might have structured the rule in such a way as to minimize any potential impacts on flexibility.

    II. Stay of Subparts Cf and XXX

    By this action, the EPA is staying the subparts added or revised by two final rules, “Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” 81 FR 59332 and “Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” 81 FR 59276 for 90 days pursuant to its authority under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. We believe that it is necessary to stay the subparts in their entirety because the tier 4 SEM provisions in the two rules are integral to how the rules function as a whole. The ability to use tier 4 SEM is a primary aspect of the flexibility we intended to include in the rule. Tier 4 SEM can be used to determine on a site-specific basis whether and when the requirement to install and operate a gas collection and control system is triggered. The tier 4 SEM provision provides flexibility in complying with other requirements in the rules that does not otherwise exist. As a result, we believe that it is appropriate to stay the subparts in their entirety while we address the tier 4 SEM issues and the other issues for which the Administrator has granted reconsideration. Therefore, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the EPA is staying 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, for 90 days.

    This stay will remain in place until August 29, 2017.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    40 CFR part 60 is amended as follows:

    PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Cf—[Stayed] 2. Subpart Cf is stayed from May 31, 2017 until August 29, 2017. Subpart XXX—[Stayed] 2. Subpart XXX is stayed from May 31, 2017 until August 29, 2017.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10752 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 161118999-7280-02] RIN 0648-XF410 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Nantucket Lightship Access Area to General Category Individual Fishing Quota Scallop Vessels AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area will close to Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota scallop vessels for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year as of the effective date below. No vessel issued a Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops from the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area. Regulations require this action once it is projected that 100 percent of trips allocated to the Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota scallop vessels for the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area will be taken.

    DATES:

    Effective 0001 hr local time, May 30, 2017, through March 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations governing fishing activity in the Sea Scallop Access Areas can be found in 50 CFR 648.59 and 648.60. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) scallop permit to fish in the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area under specific conditions, including a total of 837 trips that may be taken during the 2017 fishing year. Section 648.59(g)(3)(iii) requires the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area to be closed to LAGC IFQ permitted vessels for the remainder of the fishing year once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that the allowed number of trips for fishing year 2017 are projected to be taken.

    Based on trip declarations by LAGC IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area, analysis of fishing effort, and other information, NMFS projects that 837 trips will be taken as of May 30, 2017. Therefore, in accordance with § 648.59(g)(3)(iii), NMFS is closing the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area to all LAGC IFQ scallop vessels as of May 30, 2017. No vessel issued an LAGC IFQ permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area after 0001 local time, May 30, 2017. Any LAGC IFQ vessel that has declared into the Nantucket Lightship Access Area scallop fishery, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the VMS demarcation line on the way to the area before 0001, May 30, 2017, may complete its trip without being subject to this closure. This closure is in effect for the remainder of the 2017 scallop fishing year.

    Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area opened for the 2017 fishing year on March 23, 2017. The regulations at § 648.59(g)(3)(iii) require this closure to ensure that LAGC IFQ scallop vessels do not take more than their allocated number of trips in the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area. The projections of the date on which the LAGC IFQ fleet will have taken all of its allocated trips in an Access Area become apparent only as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends begin to appear. As a result, NMFS can only make an accurate projection very close in time to when the fleet has taken all of its trips. In order to propose a closure for purposes of receiving prior public comment, NMFS would need to make a projection based on very little information, which would result in a closure too early or too late. To allow LAGC IFQ scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would likely result in vessels taking much more than the allowed number of trips in the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area. Excessive trips and harvest from the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area would result in excessive fishing effort in the area, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process when we put these provisions in place. For these same reasons, NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 25, 2017. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11180 Filed 5-25-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 161020985-7181-02] RIN 0648-XF468 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Yellowfin Sole for Vessels Participating in the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2017 allocation of yellowfin sole total allowable catch for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the BSAI.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 26, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2017 allocation of yellowfin sole total allowable catch for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the BSAI is 18,151 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2017 allocation of yellowfin sole total allowable catch allocated as a directed fishing allowance for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for yellowfin sole for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the BSAI.

    After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for yellowfin sole by vessels fishing in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of May 24, 2017.

    The acting AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 25, 2017. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11197 Filed 5-25-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 103 Wednesday, May 31, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 989 [Doc. No. AO-FV-16-0016; AMS-SC-16-0011; SC16-989-1] Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Recommended Decision and Opportunity To File Written Exceptions to Proposed Amendment of Marketing Order No. 989 AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule and opportunity to file exceptions.

    SUMMARY:

    This recommended decision proposes amendments to Marketing Order No. 989 (order), which regulates the handling of raisins grown in California. Five amendments are proposed by the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC or Committee), which is responsible for local administration of the order. These proposed amendments would: Authorize production research; establish new nomination procedures for independent producer member and alternate member seats; add authority to regulate quality; add authority to establish different regulations for different markets; and add a continuance referenda requirement.

    In addition, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposed two amendments. These amendments would remove order language pertaining to volume regulation and reserve pool authority and would establish term limits for Committee members. In addition, AMS proposed to make any such changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may result from the hearing. These proposed amendments are intended to update the order to reflect changes in the industry and potential future changes, and to improve the operation and administration of the order.

    DATES:

    Written exceptions must be filed by June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written exceptions should be filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 1031-S, Washington, DC 20250-9200; Fax: (202) 720-9776 or via the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. Comments will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Hearing Clerk during regular business hours or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, Post Office Box 952, Moab, UT 84532; Telephone: (202) 557-4783, Fax: (435) 259-1502, or Michelle Sharrow, 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] or [email protected]

    Small businesses may request information on this proceeding 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:

    Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing issued on April 14, 2016, and published in the April 22, 2016 issue of the Federal Register (81 FR 23650).

    This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and is therefore excluded from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

    Preliminary Statement

    Notice is hereby given of the filing with the Hearing Clerk of this recommended decision with respect to the proposed amendments to Marketing Order 989 regulating the handling of raisins grown in California and the opportunity to file written exceptions thereto. Copies of this decision can be obtained from Melissa Schmaedick, whose address is listed above.

    This recommended decision is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900).

    The proposed amendments are based on the record of a public hearing held on May 3 and 4, 2016, in Clovis, California. Notice of this hearing was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23650). The notice of hearing contained five proposals submitted by the Committee and three proposals by USDA.

    The Committee's proposed amendments were recommended by the Committee on January 27, 2016, and were submitted to USDA on February 2, 2016. USDA made a determination to schedule this matter for hearing.

    The Committee's proposed amendments to the order would: (1) Authorize production research; (2) establish new nomination procedures for independent producer member and alternate member seats; (3) add authority to regulate quality; (4) add authority to establish different regulations for different markets; and (5) add a continuance referenda requirement.

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) also proposed two amendments to: (1) Remove order language pertaining to volume regulation and reserve pool authority, and (2) establish term limits for Committee members. In addition, USDA proposed to make any such changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may be adopted, or to correct minor inconsistencies and typographical errors.

    Fourteen industry witnesses testified at the hearing. The witnesses represented raisin producers and handlers in the production area, as well as the Committee, and they all supported the proposed amendments, with the exception of one industry witness who did not support the proposal for continuance referenda. All industry witnesses, however, were opposed to USDA's proposal to require term limits for Committee membership.

    Witnesses offered testimony supporting the recommendation to authorize production research. According to testimony, production research has historically been conducted by the California Raisin Marketing Board (CRMB). However, due to ongoing legal challenges to that program, the program's research activities have been suspended. Witnesses stated that adding research authority to the Federal marketing order would enable the industry to continue research while CRMB research is suspended. In the event that the CRMB were to cease to exist, the industry would be able to maintain research continuity under the Federal program.

    Witnesses testified in support of revising the RAC nomination process for independent producer members and independent producer alternate members so that each would be held separately. Witnesses stated that the current process, which combines nominations for members and alternates, and allots seats based on votes received to fill member seats first, results in multiple independent producer alternate member seat vacancies.

    Allowing for separate nominations for members and alternates would, according to witnesses, encourage participation by those who wish to serve in only one capacity and not the other. This process would allow individuals who only want to serve as alternates to no longer risk being seated as a member if they received high vote counts, as they would have previously. Witnesses believe that this proposal would increase participation of independent producers in the RAC as fewer vacancies would occur with separate nominations for members and alternates.

    Witnesses favored two proposals that would add authority to the order to regulate quality and to allow the establishment of different regulations for different markets. Witnesses explained that “quality” is mentioned in several sections of the order. However, the authority to regulate quality does not currently exist. The proposal to add this authority would support the order's current language. Witnesses also stated that quality authority could be used to establish future regulation to address quality issues not traditionally captured in grade and size regulation, such as the reduction of contaminants, including Ochratoxin. Witnesses indicated that this authority could also assist the industry in complying with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) food safety guidelines under the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA).

    The proposal to add authority to establish different regulations for different markets was supported by witnesses who spoke to the need to tailor product to the differing demands of foreign consumers. Witnesses explained that this would help their products to be more competitive against foreign producers in those markets. Furthermore, witnesses indicated that this authority would allow future quality regulations to fit the demand profile of individual markets.

    The proposal to require continuance referenda was supported by witnesses who valued the opportunity to voice their support or displeasure with the order on a periodic basis. While all but one witness testified in support of this proposal, there were differing positions taken on the timing of such referenda. The one witness who testified against the proposal stated that he would have been in favor of a “discontinuance” referendum requirement. By “discontinuance”, the witness explained that a two-thirds majority of voters voting would need to favor discontinuance in order for the program to no longer exist.

    Nonetheless, the majority of witnesses favored an initial continuance referendum no sooner than five years and no later than six years from implementation of the amendment and that subsequent referenda be conducted every six years.

    At the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge established a deadline of July 21, 2016, for the submission of corrections to the transcript, and September 9, 2016, as a deadline for interested persons to file proposed findings and conclusions or written arguments and briefs based on the evidence received at the hearing.

    One brief was filed. The brief identified a correction that had been overlooked and not included in the transcript corrections due July 21, 2016. This correction has been taken into consideration in the development of this recommended decision.

    Material Issues

    The material issues presented on the record of hearing are as follows:

    1. Whether to amend § 989.53 to authorize production research.

    2. Whether to amend §§ 989.29 and 989.129 to authorize separate nominations for independent producer member and independent producer alternate member seats.

    3. Whether to amend §§ 989.58, 989.59 and 989.61 to add authority to regulate quality, and whether to revise the heading prior to § 989.58 to include quality.

    4. Whether to amend § 989.59 to add authority to establish different regulations for different markets.

    5. Whether to amend § 989.91 to require continuance referenda.

    6. Whether to amend the order to remove volume regulation and reserve pool authority. This would include: Removing §§ 989.55 and 989.56, §§ 989.65 through 989.67, §§ 989.71, 989.72, 989.82, 989.154, 989.156, 989.166, 989.167, 989.221, 989.257 and 989.401; revising §§ 989.11, 989.53, 989.54, 989.58, 989.59, 989.60, 989.73, 989.79, 989.80, 989.84, 989.158, 989.173 and 989.210; and redesignating § 989.70 as § 989.96. In addition, whether corresponding changes should be made to the following headings: “Volume Regulation” prior to §§ 989.65; “Volume Regulation” prior to § 989.166; and “Subpart—Schedule of Payments” prior to § 989.401.

    7. Whether to amend § 989.28 to establish term limits.

    8. Whether any conforming changes need to be made as a result of the above proposed amendments. Conforming changes may also include non-substantive, typographical errors.

    Findings and Conclusions

    The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof.

    Material Issue Number 1—Production Research

    Section 989.53, Research and development, should be amended to provide the Committee with the authority to conduct production research. This authority would only be used by the Committee in the event that the California Raisin Marketing Board (CRMB), which oversees the state marketing program which currently conducts industry research, ceases to exist or is no longer financially able to fund the work.

    The CRMB is currently the designated funding source for industry-wide production research, referred to as “crop production research” under the state program. According to witnesses, research under the CRMB was suspended approximately three years ago pending the results of ongoing litigation. As a result, important research is not being conducted.

    Witnesses were also concerned that the CRMB referendum requirement, which requires the industry to indicate its support for continuance of the program every five years, may cause the CRMB to cease to exist. If that were to occur, there would be no funding program available to the industry unless the proposed amendment to provide such authority under the order were successful.

    Witnesses in support of this amendment stated that a collective effort was necessary in order for the industry to address the ongoing challenges that producers and handlers cannot financially support on their own. Challenges needing production research generally include: Pests, water issues related to drought, new varietal development, and crop production.

    Witnesses familiar with immediate research needs of the industry indicated the necessity for: Improved raisin grapes for mechanical harvest, including types resistant to powdery mildew; nematode-resistant rootstocks; early ripening varieties; and control of pests, including vine mealybug. These witnesses also explained that future research could potentially impact producers in a multitude of positive ways, “such as reduced pesticide usage or possibly safer and more economical products.”

    A witness also stated that “Also, in regards to labor, if a viable new variety were discovered with the potential to be harvested with fewer laborers needed, it would help all producers farm the crop more economically and also keep the price of raisins competitive in the marketplace.”

    Witnesses explained that if this proposal were implemented, the transition from CRMB to RAC of oversight of research under the order would not be difficult.

    According to the record, many of the CRMB Research Committee board members also serve on the current Raisin Administrative Committee, and they are familiar with the procedures for requests, budgets and implementation of research projects. The RAC would establish a budget for research and the USDA would have oversight. If the assessment rate needed to be increased to cover the costs, a new rate would be recommended by the RAC and submitted to USDA for approval, as well as public comment, prior to implementation.

    Representatives of the CRMB testifying at the hearing stated that on April 14, 2016, the CRMB voted and unanimously passed a resolution supporting this proposal. Through testimony and the content of the CRMB resolution, witnesses clearly stated that, in the absence of the CRMB's ability to support research or if the organization ceases to exist, research should be authorized to be conducted under the federal marketing order. If the CRMB is able to conduct research in the future, production research under the order would be not implemented. Therefore, only one or the other organization would be collecting funds and overseeing research at any given time.

    No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 989.53 be amended to authorize production research as proposed.

    Material Issue Number 2—Independent Producer Nominations

    Section 989.29, Initial members and nomination of successor members, and § 989.129, Voting at nominations meetings, should be amended to authorize separate nominations for independent producer member and independent producer alternate member seats.

    According to the record, there have been extensive vacancies in the seats allocated to independent producer alternate members on the RAC for the past five two-year terms. Out of the total 15 to 16 independent producer alternate member seats available, there have been 12, 13, 14, 14 and 11 vacancies for the 2006-2008, 2008-2010, 2010-2012, 2012-2014 and 2014-2016 two-year terms, respectively.

    While the independent producer member seats have been, for the most part, filled during the same five terms, the lack of independent producer alternate members results in less than full participation of the independent producer community. Alternate member seats allow for representation at a meeting when the member is not able to attend. Similarly, service as an alternate member provides exposure to the workings of the order and training for alternates to be able to serve as full members in future terms.

    According to witnesses, full representation would give independent producers full participation in the RAC's administrative decisions and program direction. In an effort to encourage increased participation, the RAC proposes that allowing separate nominations for members and alternate member seats would encourage participation by those who wish to serve in a specific seat only.

    Witnesses explained that raisin producers are largely divided into three groups: Members of Sun-Maid, members of the Raisin Bargaining Association (RBA), and independents.

    Sun-Maid is a marketing-processing cooperative. Their membership is made up of those producers that have a membership in the organization. Sun-Maid producers typically deliver all of their crop to the cooperative. On some occasions, the cooperative may also buy raisins from independent producers and the RBA. The RBA serves its members by negotiating raisin prices for its members.

    Independent producers choose not to be members of either Sun-Maid or the RBA. Independent producers typically sell their product to Sun-Maid or independent packers. However, some independent producers are members of Fresno Co-op, a small marketing cooperative representing one to two percent of the industry.

    According to the record, Sun-Maid producer members represent roughly 28 percent of industry production, with the RBA membership representing approximately 26 percent of industry production. The balance, or roughly 46 percent of the industry, is represented by independent producers.

    Out of the RAC's 47-seat Committee, 35 seats are allocated to producer representatives, as stipulated in § 989.26 of the order. For the 2014-2016 term, producer representation is allocated such that independent producers represent 16 votes (or roughly 46 percent of the RAC calculated by dividing 16 by 35), Sun-Maid represents 10 votes (roughly 28 percent of the RAC), and the RBA represents 9 votes (roughly 26 percent of the RAC).

    Currently, independent producer nominations are held in three districts. Districts One and Two, which represent all counties north and south of Fresno County, respectively, have one member and one alternate each for the 2014-2016 term. The largest district, Fresno County, for the 2014-2016 term, has 13 member and 13 alternate member seats.

    According to the record, nominees are identified at district nomination meetings, which are widely advertised by the RAC through direct-mailings, newspaper advertisements, and placement on the program's Web site. Names collected at the nomination meetings are placed on a ballot. An example given by one witness indicated that, for District Three, if 13 seats for independent producer members and 13 seats for independent producer alternate members are available, the RAC would hope to receive at least 26 different nominees to fill all positions.

    Ballots are then mailed to all independent producers who vote within their own district according to where their farm is located. When tabulating the votes according to § 989.29(2)(ii), the individual receiving the highest number of votes is designated as the first independent producer member nominee. The producer receiving the second highest number of votes is designated as the second independent producer member nominee. This tabulation process continues until all 13 of the independent producer member seats are nominated. The individual receiving the 14th highest number of votes is designated as an alternate member nominee, with this process being followed until all nominees for all independent producer member and alternate positions have been nominated. In other words, the top 13 who receive the most votes will be nominated to hold a member position, and the remaining would be nominated to hold alternate member positions.

    However, witnesses explained that, in most cases, there are too few nominees to fill both independent producer member and independent producer alternate member seats. If 20 names are on the one ballot, with only 13 member seats available, the independent producer would vote for no more than 13 names to fill the 13 member seats. Of the remaining candidates, seven would hold alternate member positions, and six alternate member seats would be left vacant. One witness offered another example of a past nomination meeting where 14 independent producer member seats, along with their corresponding alternate member seats, were available to be filled. A total of five people attended that meeting. Therefore, there were only five individuals willing to fill 28 independent producer seats.

    Witnesses speaking to the issue of low independent producer participation speculated that uncertainty over whether one would be nominated as a full member rather than an alternate member was preventing many from agreeing to be candidates. Similarly, there is a reluctance among independent producers to nominate other independent producers with limited time to attend regular RAC meetings. Witnesses indicated that the time commitment for a three- or four-hour meeting once a month as a full member was too big of a commitment for a producer who spends long days tending to his or her ranch. However, those individuals would be more inclined to serve as alternates because the commitment would be on an as-needed basis when required to serve in the place of an absent member.

    Witnesses explained that the proposal to allow for separate nomination processes for independent producer member and independent producer alternate members is designed to eliminate the risk of being nominated to a member seat to those individuals interested in serving only as an alternate. Witnesses indicated that this proposal would increase participation of independent producers on the RAC.

    According to the record, if the proposed amendment passes, instead of a single ballot for all nominations as is currently done, there would be two separate ballots: one for members and one for alternate members. As is currently the practice, a meeting would be held by the RAC for the purpose of receiving nominations; if the proposed amendment passes, those nominations would be submitted separately for members and alternates.

    Ballot mailing and tabulation of results would follow the current practice, described above, with the individual receiving the highest number of independent producer member votes becoming the first independent producer nominee, and so on, until all independent producer member seats are assigned a nominee. The same process would be used for identifying the individuals assigned as nominees to fill the independent producer member alternate seats.

    USDA would oversee the nomination process, review background and acceptance statements and ultimately select and appoint the members. The timing of the nominations would not change, and there would be no anticipated additional costs in the administration of the nomination process.

    Witnesses explained that this proposal, if implemented, would positively impact the California raisin industry, indicating that it would result in a fuller representation of those impacted by the program. Full representation would give the independent producers the fullest potential of their voice in the RAC decision-making process. Representation of small, independent producer businesses on the RAC could also increase, thereby supporting small business interests.

    Additionally, witnesses indicated that increased participation of independent producers serving as alternate producer members could be viewed as a training opportunity for future generations of RAC members. Serving as alternates would allow these individuals to become familiar with the administrative functioning of the order. One witness indicated the desire to nominate individuals who are new to the industry or generational members who are assuming responsibility for their family farm. The witness described these individuals as the future of the industry.

    No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was presented at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 989.29, Initial members and nomination of successor members, and § 989.129, Voting at nominations meetings, be amended to authorize separate nominations for independent producer member and independent producer alternate member seats as proposed.

    Material Issue Number 3—Authority To Regulate Quality

    Sections 989.58, 989.59 and 989.61 (“Natural condition raisins,” “Regulation of the handling of raisins subsequent to their acquisition by handlers” and “Above parity situations,” respectively) should be amended to regulate quality by inserting the word “quality” after the words “minimum grade” in each section, respectively. Additionally, the heading prior to § 989.58 should be revised to read “Grade, Quality, and Condition Standards”. This would add authority to regulate quality under the order.

    Currently, §§ 989.58 and 989.59 of the order state that the RAC has authority to regulate grade and condition standards. The attribute “quality” is not specifically mentioned. However, current program language indicates the intent to regulate quality by use of that word in several sections of the order. The inclusion of “quality” as a regulated attribute would support and further strengthen the current usage of this term in the order and its application in current inspection and order activities.

    Witnesses explained that, if implemented, this proposal would clarify the intent of §§ 989.53 (Research and development), 989.54 (Marketing policy), 989.73 (Reports), 989.107 (Inspection certificate), 989.157 through 989.160 (Quality Control), and form FV 146 (Certificate of Quality and Condition), which all refer to the regulation of “quality” under the order.

    Witnesses explained that the authority to regulate quality would allow them to regulate product attributes that fall outside the traditional scope of “grade” and “condition standards.” According to the record, current raisin grade and condition standards found in the order correspond to the “U.S. Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins,” USDA, December 1, 1978. The attributes regulated under grade and condition standards include, but are not limited to: Characteristics of damaged raisins (sunburn, scars, insect injury, etc.); presence of capstems, sugar crystals, grit, sand, silt, discoloration, moisture, or mold; and signs of immaturity. According to the record, “quality” would therefore mean attributes that impact the consumer, supply chain, end user, or the public's demand for the product.

    Witnesses also testified about the importance of quality checks on product, specifically residual testing for herbicides, pesticides or fungicide residues, to ensure the safety of the consumer. As an example, witnesses discussed the need to regulate Ochratoxin, a naturally occurring fungus. A tolerance limit for this fungus is in place for products entering many markets. Witnesses stated that the ability to meet those markets' import requirements are vital to continued trade. By implementing quality regulation under the order, the industry would be certain that this requirement would be equally applied to all handlers of raisins within the U.S. Witnesses also explained that many producers are prohibited from using chemicals and their usage is regulated in the production of raisins, but this authority would allow for product validation or attesting that there are no residual chemicals on incoming or outgoing raisins from the packers.

    Furthermore, in the event that the industry desires to implement further regulation to conform to forthcoming FDA guidelines under the Food Safety Modernization Act, those regulations may not fall within the traditional framework of grade and condition standards. Thus, the authority to regulate quality would provide the RAC with the flexibility to meet future regulatory needs of its industry.

    Witnesses stated that the anticipated cost impact on the industry as a result of this proposal would be minimal at this time. If approved in referendum by producers, the addition of “quality” to the list of attributes that can be regulated under the order would not necessarily result in new, immediate regulation. Any new regulation would need to be developed and vetted as a proposal, approved and recommended by the RAC, published by USDA as a proposed rule, allow for public comment, and receive USDA approval prior to being implemented.

    If quality regulation were recommended by the RAC and approved by USDA, such regulation would address quality concerns within the industry. For example, if Ochratoxin were to be regulated, its regulation would benefit the industry by ensuring that raisins with high levels of this toxin were not placed into the market. In addition, foreign markets with low Ochratoxin threshold levels would be assured that California raisins are adequately regulated. This type of regulation would assure customers of the industry's oversight of product quality. As such, witnesses explained that any potential costs of future regulation would be outweighed by the benefits of product quality assurance in the market. Witnesses also explained that California raisins are currently inspected. The addition of another inspection parameter is unlikely to result in significant costs. Witnesses also anticipated that quality regulations could result in increased returns for both producers and handlers as, in some markets, a higher price would be paid for quality-certified product.

    No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that §§ 989.58, 989.59 and 989.61, and the heading preceding § 989.58 should be amended to add quality regulation authority under the order.

    Material Issue Number 4—Different Market Regulations

    Section 989.59, Regulation of the handling of raisins subsequent to their acquisition by handlers, should be further amended to provide authority to establish different regulations for different markets.

    Current order language establishes grade and condition standards for two classifications only: Grade A and Grade B. According to the record, the California raisin industry has customers in as many as 50 different countries. While the consumer bases in these countries vary significantly, the order does not allow for different quality or grade standards to be applied to exports to those markets. This proposed authority would allow the RAC to develop regulation for product that is best suited for a particular market destination.

    Witnesses clarified that this proposal would only result in the addition of the authority to establish different regulations for different market destinations under the order. This proposal would not result in new, immediate regulation. If this proposal is implemented, the RAC could make recommendations for different regulations for different market destinations to USDA. Any new regulation would need to be developed and vetted as a proposal, approved and recommended by the RAC, published by USDA as a proposed rule, allow for public comment, and receive USDA approval prior to being implemented.

    Witnesses stated that if any market-specific regulations were to be implemented as a result of this authority, the anticipated impact on producers and handlers would not be negative. Different regulations for different market destinations would not prevent product from being sold into the market. Instead, it would match product attributes to the consumer profile and customer demands of each market. In doing so, witnesses anticipate that returns to producers and handlers could increase as consumers would be more likely to pay more for those products.

    One witness stated that in the current global market, customers regularly establish their own individual specifications and define their own key attributes of quality. Thus, the authority of the marketing order to be more selective and precise for individual markets would likely enhance demand for California raisins. Witnesses further added that market-specific regulations tailored to market-specific consumers would allow the industry to be more competitive against foreign producers in those markets.

    As previously stated, many export markets have unique product specifications in place to meet their consumer tastes and needs of their market. Witnesses explained that many California raisin handlers shipping to those markets are already meeting those product specifications. However, if this proposal were implemented, the RAC could recommend standards for all California raisin handlers shipping to specific export markets, thereby ensuring uniform quality of product and a level playing field for foreign customers who are comparing product services from multiple handlers.

    According to the hearing record, the addition of this authority is not intended to address any specific export market at this time. Witnesses stated that the market is currently functioning well, with quality product being shipped to consistently meet foreign customers' product specifications.

    According to data submitted at the hearing, the top five export markets for natural seedless raisins in crop year 2014-2015 were Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, China and Germany. Exports for the 2014-2015 crop year totaled 111,407 packed tons, which is slightly lower than the five-crop-year average of 130,880 packed tons. By comparison, U.S. consumption of natural seedless for the 2014-2015 crop year totaled 180,627 packed tons. Based on these numbers, roughly 40 percent of the California raisin crop is exported (111,407/(180,627+111,407)≉40%). Therefore, as witnesses indicated, the ability to develop specific quality or grade requirements for these export markets would assist in meeting or improving product demand for roughly half of the industry's production.

    No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 989.59, Regulation of the handling of raisins subsequent to their acquisition by handlers, should be further amended to provide authority to establish different regulations for different markets.

    Material Issue Number 5—Continuance Referenda

    Section 989.91, Suspension or termination, should be amended to require continuance referenda. Currently there is no continuance referendum requirement in the order.

    If implemented, this amendment would provide the industry with an opportunity to determine if the order is favored by producers between five to six years after the implementation of the proposal for the initial referendum and every six years thereafter for subsequent referenda. If continuance were favored by at least two-thirds of producers voting in the continuance referendum, or if the volume of those voting represented a two-thirds majority of volume voted in support of continuance, the order would continue. If the vote failed to get two-thirds support by either number of voters or volume, USDA could terminate the program.

    Witnesses explained that when the details of this proposal were first developed by the RAC's Rulemaking Workgroup (workgroup), the recommendation was to conduct an initial continuance referendum no sooner than five years after, and no later than six years after, the proposal was implemented. Subsequent referenda were to be conducted every six years thereafter. This recommendation was voted on and accepted by the workgroup, and was then presented to the Administrative Issues Subcommittee and full RAC membership meeting on January 27, 2016.

    According to the record, when this recommendation was presented at the January 27, 2016 meeting, a lengthy discussion, including several proposed modifications, ensued. At that meeting, a revision to the proposed continuance referendum requirement was made, resulting in the initial referendum being slated to occur no sooner than two crop years and no later than six crop years of the proposal's implementation. The modified proposal passed with sixteen “yes” votes and ten “no” votes. Consequently, the modified proposal became the amendatory text included in the Notice of Hearing for this proposed rulemaking.

    However, at the close of the January 27, 2016, meeting, and in subsequent RAC discussions, the modified continuance referendum requirement was revisited by individuals raising concerns that two years may not provide sufficient time for the industry to fully adjust to any amendments resulting from this rulemaking action prior to a continuance vote. The RAC met again on April 14, 2016, and voted unanimously to uphold the original recommendation of the workgroup. In other words, the RAC voted to change the timing of the initial referendum requirement from two to six crop years after implementation back to a requirement of holding the initial referendum between five and six crop years after implementation.

    As a result of the April 14, 2016, unanimous RAC vote, witnesses testifying on behalf of this amendment proposed a modification to the Notice of Hearing language, requesting that the phrase “no less than two years and no later than six years” be reverted to the workgroup's original proposal of “no less than five years and no more than six years” after implementation of the amendment. All witnesses testifying in favor of the proposed continuance referendum requirement supported this modification.

    As a conforming change, USDA recommends modifying the alternate language proposed by the RAC to change the word “year” to “crop year”, as necessary, to be consistent with previously proposed amendatory language for this change. The RAC proposed modification and the USDA conforming change have been included in the amendatory text of this recommended decision. The requirement for subsequent referenda to be conducted every six crop years thereafter remains unchanged.

    In general, witnesses favored the continuance referendum requirement stating that the industry had not undergone an amendatory proceeding of its marketing program since 1989 and, therefore, has not had the opportunity to ascertain producer support since then. If implemented, witnesses stated that the continuance referendum requirement would provide the industry with regular feedback on the success and acceptance of its program's activities.

    Furthermore, witnesses stated that this proposal, if implemented, would bring the order in line with the “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders,” (guidelines) issued by the U.S Department of Agriculture on January 25, 1982. These guidelines state that, “The Secretary believes these referenda are in the public interest. They provide the industry with the means to regularly re-assess the value of marketing orders and keep the Department informed of the wishes of the majority of the industry. Therefore, the Secretary is requiring that periodic referenda be conducted for each order. USDA will work with each committee in development of a time frame appropriate for each order.”

    One witness raised concerns over the two-thirds majority requirement, as described above, to determine continuance, suspension or termination. This witness indicated that the two-thirds support requirement may be too large, and that if one-third of the industry were to not favor continuance, the program would fail. This witness indicated that this presented too large of a risk to the program and that a “discontinuance” referendum requiring two-thirds in favor of discontinuance would be more favorable.

    Witnesses countering this position stated that the two-thirds in favor of continuance requirement is standard across many current marketing orders containing active continuance referendum requirements.

    Witnesses also stated that the raisin industry has a history of consensus-building, with RAC votes on recommended actions historically being voted unanimously after extensive internal discussion and deliberations over a proposed course of action. One witness offered that, through the process of debate and compromise, consensus is reached. This witness also indicated that historically, in spite of robust and lengthy debates, the industry has shown an appreciation and value for its marketing order program.

    Ultimately, witnesses concurred that the proposal for mandatory continuance referenda had been discussed and debated in the industry and, if implemented with the modified language presented at the hearing, would be a positive compromise encompassing many viewpoints. Witnesses stated that there would be minimal costs associated with implementing this proposal, if approved and implemented. Witnesses further explained that USDA has established procedures for conducting continuance referenda, as these are regularly held in other marketing orders, and that the addition of a continuance referendum every six years will assure that the marketing order is responsive to industry needs and changing circumstances. While it would not directly improve producer returns, witnesses stated that it would indirectly assure that the industry believes the marketing order is operating in their best interest, as the marketing order is funded by the assessments of the industry.

    Witnesses further stated that many producers are small businesses, and this proposal will provide another democratic opportunity to participate in the marketing order.

    For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 989.91 be amended to require continuance referenda as proposed.

    Material Issue Number 6—Volume Regulation Removal

    USDA is proposing that all volume regulation and reserve pool authorities, and their related provisions, be removed from the order. As such, the following sections should be removed from the order: §§ 989.55, Regulation by the Secretary; 989.56, Raisin diversion program; 989.65, Free and reserve tonnage; 989.66, Reserve tonnage generally; 989.67, Disposal of reserve raisins; 989.71, Disposition of unsold reserve tonnage in above parity situations; 989.72, Exemption of educational institutions; 989.82, Expenses of reserve raisin operations; 989.154, Marketing policy computations; 989.156, Raisin diversion program; 989.166, Reserve tonnage generally; 989.167, Disposal of reserve raisins; 989.221, Sale and export of reserve raisins by handlers; 989.257, Final free and reserve percentages; and, 989.401 Payments for services performed with respect to reserve tonnage raisins.

    In addition, the following headings should be removed: “Volume Regulation” prior to § 989.65, “Free and reserve tonnage.”; “Volume Regulation” prior to § 989.166, “Reserve tonnage generally.” and, “Subpart—Schedule of Payments” prior to § 989.401, “Payments for services performed with respect to reserve tonnage raisins.”

    Also in accordance with this proposal, the following sections should be revised: §§ 989.11 “Producer,” which mentions the diversion program; 989.53 “Research and development,” to remove research and development projects related to reserve tonnage raisins; 989.54 “Marketing policy,” to remove marketing policy trade demand calculations linked to reserve raisins; 989.58 “Natural condition raisins,” to remove references to free and tonnage raisins; 989.59 “Regulation of the handling of raisins subsequent to their acquisition by handler,” to remove regulation of the handling of reserve raisins subsequent to their acquisition by handlers; 989.60 “Exemption,” to remove exemptions for reserve raisins; 989.73 “Reports,” to remove reports related to reserve raisins; 989.79 “Expenses,” to remove the authority for the RAC to incur expenses related to volume regulation or reserve raisins; 989.80 “Assessments,” to remove assessment language involving volume regulations and reserve pool raisins; 989.84 “Disposition limitation,” to remove disposition limitations for reserve raisins on handlers; 989.158 “Natural condition raisins,” to remove the inclusion of reserve raisins from the natural condition raisin definition and provisions for reconditioning of off-grade reserve raisins; 989.173 “Reports,” to remove reporting requirements related to reserve pool raisins and volume regulation; and, 989.210 “Handling of varietal types of raisins acquired pursuant to a weight dockage system,” to remove handling regulation of reserve varietal types of raisins acquired using a weight dockage system.

    Lastly, § 989.70, “Storage of raisins held on memorandum receipt and of packer-owned tonnage,” should be re-designated as § 989.96 as a result of the removal and amendment of the above sections.

    According to the record, on June 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in Horne v. USDA, ruled that the application of the marketing order's reserve pool authority to the Hornes was a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By a July 16, 2015, letter to the RAC, USDA stated, “In light of the Horne decision, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has decided not to authorize the reserve program of the federal marketing order for California raisins for the foreseeable future, effective immediately.”

    Accordingly, USDA is proposing the removal of the reserve pool authority. In addition, USDA has determined that the reserve pool authority is inextricably connected to the order's volume regulation authority. Furthermore, language for both authorities can be extracted from the order language without disturbing the remaining program functions. Therefore, USDA is proposing that all volume regulation and reserve pool authorities, and all related provisions, be removed from the order.

    A USDA witness speaking on behalf of this proposal indicated that the July 16, 2015, letter to the RAC indicated USDA's intention to schedule a formal rulemaking hearing. According to the witness and record evidence, the letter encouraged the RAC “to consider proposals to amend provisions in the marketing order related to the reserve program.” During a July 28, 2015, meeting with the RAC, the RAC was again informed of USDA's intention to initiate rulemaking in the spring of 2016, for the purpose of amending the order as described above. Finally, on August 20, 2015, USDA met with the RAC to notify them that the aforementioned hearing would take place in May 2016.

    The RAC was provided with a draft of USDA's proposed modifications to the marketing order language that indicated which sections of language would be removed, revised, and re-designated. The RAC was given the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed modified language. Consequently, some minor adjustments were made based on industry feedback, and the industry indicated its general acceptance of USDA's proposed modifications prior to entering into the pre-hearing ex parte period. These proposed changes are captured in the proposed amendatory text published in this proceeding's Notice of Hearing, as well as in the amendatory text of this recommended decision. Industry witnesses testifying at the hearing indicated general support for USDA's proposed amendatory changes.

    One witness speaking on behalf of the industry's largest producer-handler cooperative, indicated that historical data supported the proposal that volume regulation was no longer needed in the order. The witness presented record evidence showing the varying acres of California raisins by variety grapes from 2006 to 2015. As one example, according to the data, in 2006, raisin variety bearing acres was 234,000, and in 2015, it was 190,000, indicating a sharp decline in raisin-producing acreage.

    The witness explained that this data supported the theory that the California raisin industry is adjusting to a decreasing or flat demand for the product. The witness stated that, in the future, supply will likely remain in better balance with demand and, therefore, the reserve pool and volume regulation are no longer as relevant as they were in higher production times. To further the point, the witness stated that the order's reserve pool authority has not been utilized since 2010.

    No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that volume regulation and reserve pool authorities in the order be amended as proposed, including: Removing §§ 989.55 and 989.56, §§ 989.65 through 989.67, §§ 989.71, 989.72, 989.82, 989.154, 989.156, 989.166, 989.167, 989.221, 989.257 and 989.401; revising §§ 989.11, 989.53, 989.54, 989.58, 989.59, 989.60, 989.73, 989.79, 989.80, 989.84, 989.158, 989.173 and 989.210; and re-designating § 989.70 as § 989.96.

    In addition, the following headings should be removed: “Volume Regulation” prior to § 989.65, “Free and reserve tonnage.”; “Volume Regulation” prior to § 989.166, “Reserve tonnage generally.”; and “Subpart—Schedule of Payments” prior to § 989.401, “Payments for services performed with respect to reserve tonnage raisins.”

    Material Issue Number 7—Term Limits

    Section 989.28, Term of office, should be revised to establish a limit on the number of consecutive terms a person may serve as a member of the RAC.

    Currently, the term of office of each member and alternate member of the RAC is two years. There are no provisions related to term limits in the marketing order. Members and alternates may serve on the RAC until their respective successors are selected and have been qualified.

    The USDA believes that all marketing order programs should include tenure limitations for committee membership. The USDA believes that this provision would increase industry participation on the RAC, provide for more diverse membership, provide the Committee with new perspectives and ideas, and increase the number of individuals in the industry with Committee experience.

    At the hearing and as stated in the Notice of Hearing, USDA proposed a period of eight years as an appropriate limit to the number of years a member may serve consecutively. Since the current term of office for members and alternates is two years, USDA is proposing that members serve no more than four consecutive two-year terms, or a total of eight years. Once a member has served on the RAC for four consecutive terms, or eight years, the member could not serve as a member for at least one year before being eligible to serve again.

    As originally stated in the Notice of Hearing, USDA's proposal for term limits would have applied to both members and alternate members. However, at the hearing, the USDA witness testifying on behalf of this proposal offered a modification to remove the term limit requirement from alternate member service. The witness clarified that the modification would allow continuity to be maintained through individuals rotating their service between member and alternate member status. The witness stated that the modified language would uphold the intent of the 1982 guidelines as well as meet the needs of the industry for continuity of service. The modified language proposed by USDA would read as follows: “Committee members may serve up to four consecutive two-year terms of office. In no event shall any member serve more than eight consecutive years on the Committee. For purposes of determining when a representative has served four consecutive terms, the accrual of terms shall begin following any period of at least twelve consecutive months out of office. This limitation on tenure shall not include service on the Committee prior to implementation of this amendment. This limitation on tenure shall not apply to the service of alternate members.” This language has been incorporated into the regulatory text of this recommended decision.

    This proposal falls within the 1982 guidelines and USDA's experience that indicates that a period of eight years is an appropriate period. Eight years is considered long enough for committee members to make meaningful contributions to the administration of a marketing order, but not so long as to exclude others from participation on the committee.

    According to evidence submitted at the hearing, term limits are in place in other federal marketing orders and have generally proven to have the intended impact on member participation and diversity. Of the 28 marketing orders currently in effect, 15 have term limits, including 3 out of 6 of the federal marketing orders that are based in California. The California programs requiring term limits include the Almond Board of California, the Administrative Committee for Pistachios, and the Kiwifruit Administrative Committee. Multi-state federal marketing order examples, such as the tart cherry industry administrative board, as well as the Cranberry Marketing Committee, also have term limits.

    The witness further explained that term limits, as applicable in other marketing order programs, have been applied in ways that have suited those particular industries. For example, industry members can serve a number of consecutive terms before taking a minimum of a one-year break or a moving to an alternate member position. For those industries, term limits offer an opportunity to groom potential successors, while also retaining seasoned members with important institutional knowledge as alternate members who can continue to advise the board or committee.

    The witness offered two specific examples of successful industry application of term limit requirements for the purpose of recruiting new, up-and-coming industry individuals: The California almond and kiwifruit industries.

    In order to manage its succession planning for term limits, the Almond Board of California conducts an almond industry leadership program that provides mentorship and education on the almond industry for younger, newer entrants into the industry. The program allows participants to be trained in a diverse range of issues, such as environmental stewardship, food quality and safety, as well as government, trade and leadership development. At the end of the program, participants are offered an opportunity to sit on a subcommittee of the Board for a year, in order to encourage them to pursue leadership roles within the industry and give them exposure to the inner workings of the organization. According to the witness, this experience helps build newcomer interest and expertise, in order to eventually move on to a position on the Almond Board of California Board of Directors.

    The witness's second example, the Kiwifruit Administrative Committee, convened an ad hoc diversity subcommittee in 2014 and implemented a diversity plan that resulted in the addition of three new members and three new alternates. The Kiwifruit Administrative Committee, or the KAC, reached out to eight local and highly visible newspapers, including the Appeal Democrat, the Chico Enterprise, the Modesto Bee, the Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee, the Porterville Post, the Valley Voice, and the Packer, and placed press releases on its Facebook page as well as the industry Web site and also shared the press releases with seven county Farm Bureau offices to conduct outreach. The outreach was successful in garnering many new members, four of whom are also involved in producing new kiwifruit varieties, which have recently been introduced into the market.

    Industry witnesses presented testimony in opposition to this proposal. Although they agreed that increased industry participation in the program is desirable, witnesses stated that the application of term limits could be problematic. Testimony indicated that finding California raisin producers to serve on the RAC, especially independent producers, is challenging. Witnesses noted that there have been times in the past when filling RAC member positions has been difficult and that recruiting new members is not easily done. Moreover, witnesses stated that industry members who currently serve on the RAC bring knowledge and experience to the RAC that would be difficult to replace.

    Furthermore, both Sun-Maid and RBA have internal programs that serve to fulfill recruitment and training opportunities for industry members new to the program's operations. Therefore, according to witnesses, the need for a formalized, industry-wide program was not apparent.

    Nonetheless, USDA believes that any additional efforts necessary to find eligible producers and handlers who are willing to serve on the RAC are offset by the benefits derived by broader industry participation in order operations. Therefore, USDA recommends adding this requirement.

    For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 989.28, Term of office, be amended to include term limits as proposed.

    Material Issue Number 8—Conforming Changes

    USDA recommends that any changes that may be necessary to the order language to conform to any of the above-proposed amendments, if implemented, should be made. In addition, conforming changes may also include non-substantive, typographical errors.

    As such, USDA recommends correcting the following minor inconsistencies and typographical errors found in the current order language that are not substantive in nature. These include: Changing all occurrences of the term “offgrade” to “off-grade”; changing all occurrences of the term “nonnormal” to “non-normal”; and, changing all occurrences of the term “committee” to “Committee.” These corrections would result in consistent spelling of these terms throughout the order.

    In addition, the words “Processed Products Standardization and Inspection Branch” in §§ 989.58(d) and 989.59(d) should be changed to “Specialty Crops Inspection Division.” Similarly, “Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division” in § 989.102 should be changed to “Specialty Crops Inspection Division.” These corrections would reflect the official name change of the AMS's inspection service office for fruit, vegetables and specialty crops.

    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 the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through group action of essentially small entities for their own benefit.

    According to the hearing transcript, there are approximately 3,000 raisin producers in California. According to National Agricultural Statistics Service data presented at the hearing, the total value of production of raisins in the 2014/15 crop year is $598,052,000. Taking the total value of production for raisins and dividing it by the total number of raisin producers provides an average return per producer of $199,950.67. A small producer as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) is one that grosses less than $750,000 annually. Therefore, a majority of raisin producers are considered small entities under SBA's standards.

    According to the industry, there were 23 handlers for the 2015/16 crop year. A small agricultural service firm as defined by the SBA is one that grosses less than $7,500,000 annually. Based on Committee data, 13 handlers would be considered small entities under SBA's standards. Slightly more than half of the industry's handlers are considered small entities under SBA's standards.

    The production area regulated under the order covers the state of California. Acreage devoted to raisin production in the regulated area has declined in recent years. According to data presented at the hearing, bearing acreage for raisins reached a high of 280,000 acres during the 2000/01 crop year. Since then, bearing acreage for raisins has decreased 32 percent to 190,000 in 2014/15. As a result, the total production of raisins reached a high during the 2000/01 crop year of 484,500 tons (dried basis). Since the 2000/01 crop year, total production for raisins has decreased 32 percent to 328,600 tons in 2014/15.

    During the hearing held May 3 and 4, 2016, interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the proposed amendments to the order on small businesses. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that none of the proposed amendments would have any burdensome effects or a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small agricultural producers or firms.

    Material Issue Number 1—Authorize Production Research

    The proposal described in Material Issue 1 would amend § 989.53 to authorize production research.

    Currently, the California Raisin Marketing Board (CRMB) is the funding source for production research for the California raisin industry. Three years ago, payments of assessments to the CRMB were suspended due to the results of litigation. Without funding the CRMB has been unable to conduct any new production research projects. If amended, this proposal would authorize the RAC to conduct production research without having to rely on the CRMB.

    Witnesses supported this proposal and stated that future research could potentially impact producers in many ways, such as reducing pesticide usage or the development of new varieties that are less labor intensive. Production research would provide the raisin industry the ability to meet the needs of the ever changing domestic and international markets. According to a witness's testimony, the benefits of the proposed amendment would outweigh any costs.

    For the reasons described above, it is determined that the proposed amendment would benefit industry participants and improve administration of the order. The costs of implementing this proposal would be minimal, if any.

    Material Issue Number 2—Authorize Separate Nominations for Independent Producer Member and Independent Producer Alternate Member Seats

    The proposal described in Material Issue 2 would amend §§ 989.29 and 989.129 to authorize separate nominations for independent producer members and independent producer alternate member seats.

    Currently, the RAC has difficulty filling Committee seats designated for independent producer members and independent producer alternative members. Independent producer alternative member seats have gone unfilled for several consecutive years.

    According to witnesses' testimony, the purpose of the proposal is to increase the participation of independent producers willing to participate on the Committee. Full participation would give the independent producers their represented voice on RAC decisions.

    In conclusion, it is determined that the benefits of increased Committee participation by independent producers would outweigh any costs associated with the implementation of the proposed amendment.

    Material Issue Number 3—Add Authority To Regulate Quality

    The proposal described in Material Issue 3 would amend §§ 989.58, 989.59 and 989.61 to add authority to regulate quality. A corresponding change would also revise the heading prior to § 989.58 to include quality.

    Currently, §§ 989.58 and 989.59 of the order state that the Committee has the authority to recommend grade and condition standards regulation under the order. The attribute “quality” is not specifically mentioned. The proposed amendment would add language to include “quality” as an attribute that can be regulated under the order.

    According to a witness, the proposed amendment would give the Committee flexibility to ensure consumer safety by setting quality standards for residue levels for herbicides, pesticides or fungicides. The quality standards would be equally applied to all handlers of raisins within the U.S.; some handlers are already testing for certain types of fungicides so the increased costs would be minimal.

    It is determined that the additional costs incurred to regulate quality would be greatly outweighed by the increased flexibility for the industry to respond to changing quality regulations, increased consumer safety, and other benefits gained from implementing this proposal.

    Material Issue Number 4—Add Authority To Establish Different Regulations for Different Markets

    The proposal described in Material Issue 4 would amend § 989.59 to add authority to establish different regulations for different markets.

    The order does not currently allow for different quality or grade standards to be applied to different foreign markets. The language in the order only has two classifications for grade and condition standards, Grade A or Grade B. The current grade and condition standards are consistent across all markets.

    The proposed amendment would give the Committee the authority to develop regulations for individual foreign markets that would be best suited for that specific destination. This proposal would give the industry flexibility to tailor product attributes to meet the foreign consumer profile and the customer demands for each individual market.

    For the reasons described above, it is determined that any additional costs incurred for this proposal would be outweighed by the increased flexibility for the industry to respond to a changing global marketplace.

    Material Issue Number 5—Continuance Referenda

    The proposal described in Material Issue 5 would amend § 989.91 to require continuance referenda.

    The proposed amendment would require the USDA to conduct a continuance referenda between year five and year six for the first referendum and every six years thereafter to assure that the order is responsive to industry needs and changing circumstances. A witness testified that a continuance referenda is the best tool for assuring that the order remains responsive to the needs of the industry. While a continuance referenda will not directly improve producer returns, it will indirectly assure that the industry believes that the order is operating in the producer's best interest.

    For these reasons, it is determined that the benefits of conducting a continuance referenda would outweigh the potential costs of implementing this proposal.

    Material Issue Number 6—Remove Volume Regulations and Reserve Pool Authority

    The proposal described in Material Issue 6 would amend the order to remove volume regulation and reserve pool authority. This would include: Removing §§ 989.55 and 989.56, §§ 989.65 through 989.67, §§ 989.71, 989.72, 989.82, 989.154, 989.156, 989.166, 989.167, 989.221, 989.257, and 989.401; revising §§ 989.11, 989.53, 989.54, 989.58, 989.59, 989.60, 989.73, 989.79, 989.80, 989.84, 989.158, 989.173, and 989.210; and redesignating § 989.70 as § 989.96. Corresponding changes would also remove the following headings: “Volume Regulation” prior to § 989.65; “Volume Regulation” prior to § 989.166; and, “Subpart-Schedule of Payments” prior to § 989.401.

    The proposed amendment would remove all authority for the RAC to establish volume restrictions and a reserve pool. On June 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in Horne v. USDA, ruled that the application of the marketing order's reserve pool authority to the Hornes was a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By a July 16, 2015 letter to the Raisin Administrative Committee, USDA stated, “In light of the Horne decision, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has decided not to authorize the reserve program of the federal marketing order for California raisins for the foreseeable future, effective immediately.”

    One witness explained that bearing acres have declined the past ten years that supports the theory that the California raisin industry is adjusting to a decreasing or flat demand for the product. The witness stated that, in the future, supply will likely remain in better balance with demand and, therefore, the reserve pool and volume regulation are no longer as relevant as they were in higher production times. To further the point, the witness stated that the order's reserve pool authority has not been utilized since 2010.

    The proposal would be a relaxation of regulations, for this reason, it is determined that no significant impact on small business entities is anticipated from this proposed change.

    Material Issue Number 7—Establish Term Limits

    The proposal described in Material Issue 7 would amend § 989.28 to establish term limits.

    The proposed amendment would establish term limits of up to four consecutive two-year terms for members only, not alternate members. If implemented, in no event would any member serve more than eight consecutive years on the Committee. The proposal for term limits would conform the order to other existing programs. USDA strives to maintain continuity in the service of its members.

    According to a witness's testimony, term limits in other marketing orders have generally proven to have the intended impact of increased participation and diversity. For these reasons, it is determined that the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the potential costs of implementation.

    The costs attributed to these proposed changes are minimal; therefore, there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule. These amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the order and to assist in the marketing of California raisins.

    RAC meetings regarding these proposals, as well as the hearing date and location, were widely publicized throughout the California raisin industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and the hearing to participate in RAC deliberations on all issues. All RAC meetings and the hearing were public forums, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on these issues. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    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.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Current information collection requirements for Part 989 are approved by OMB, under OMB Number 0581-0189—“Generic OMB Fruit Crops.” No changes are anticipated in these requirements as a result of this proceeding. Should any such changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    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.

    Civil Justice Reform

    The amendments to the order proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed amendments would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this proposal.

    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 no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.

    Rulings on Briefs of Interested Persons

    Briefs, proposed findings and conclusions, and the evidence in the record were considered in making the findings and conclusions set forth in this recommended decision. To the extent that the suggested findings and conclusions filed by interested persons are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions of this recommended decision, the requests to make such findings or to reach such conclusions are denied.

    General Findings

    The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing agreement and order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

    (1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

    (2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of raisins grown in the production area (California) in the same manner as, and is applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order upon which a hearing has been held;

    (3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in its application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

    (4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of raisins grown in the production area; and

    (5) All handling of raisins grown in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

    A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because these proposed changes have already been widely publicized, and the Committee and industry would like to avail themselves of the opportunity to implement the changes as soon as possible. All written exceptions received within the comment period will be considered, and a producer referendum will be conducted before any of these proposals are implemented.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989

    Raisins, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Recommended Further Amendment of the Marketing Order

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED BY GRAPES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 989 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 989.11 is revised to read as follows:
    § 989.11 Producer.

    Producer means any person engaged in a proprietary capacity in the production of grapes which are sun-dried or dehydrated by artificial means until they become raisins.

    3. In § 989.28: a. Redesignate the introductory text as paragraph (a); b. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (a); and c. Add paragraph (b).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 989.28 Term of office.

    (a) The term of office of all representatives serving on the Committee shall be for two years and shall end on April 30 of even numbered calendar years; Provided, That each such member and alternate member shall continue to serve until their successor is selected and has qualified.

    (b) Representatives may serve up to four consecutive, two-year terms of office. In no event shall any representative serve more than eight consecutive years on the Committee. For purposes of determining when a representative has served four consecutive terms, the accrual of terms shall begin following any period of at least twelve consecutive months out of office. This limitation on tenure shall not include service on the Committee prior to implementation of this amendment. This limitation on tenure shall not apply to the service of alternate members.

    4. In § 989.29: a. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(ii); b. Redesignate paragraph (b)(2)(iii) as paragraph (b)(2)(iv); c. Add a new paragraph (b)(2)(iii); and d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2)(iv).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 989.29 Initial members and nomination of successor members.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (ii) Each such producer whose name is offered in nomination for producer member positions to represent on the committee independent producers or producers who are affiliated with cooperative marketing association(s) handling less than 10 percent of the total raisin acquisitions during the preceding crop year shall be given the opportunity to provide the committee a short statement outlining qualifications and desire to serve if selected. Similarly, each such producer whose name is offered in nomination for producer alternate member positions to represent on the committee independent producers or producers who are affiliated with cooperative marketing association(s) handling less than 10 percent of the total raisin acquisitions during the preceding crop year shall be given the opportunity to provide the committee a short statement outlining qualifications and desire to serve if selected. These brief statements, together with a ballot and voting instructions, shall be mailed to all independent producers and producers who are affiliated with cooperative marketing associations handling less than 10 percent of the total raisin acquisitions during the preceding crop year of record with the committee in each district. The producer member candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be designated as the first member nominee, the second highest shall be designated as the second member nominee until nominees for all producer member positions have been filled. Similarly, the producer alternate member candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be designated as the first alternate member nominee, the second highest shall be designated as the second alternate member nominee until nominees for all member positions have been filled.

    (iii) In the event that there are more producer member nominees than positions to be filled and not enough producer alternate member nominees to fill all positions, producer member nominees not nominated for a member seat may be nominated to fill vacant alternate member seats. Member seat nominees shall indicate, prior to the nomination vote, whether they are willing to accept nomination for an alternate seat in the event they are not nominated for a member seat and there are vacant alternate member seats. Member seat nominees that do not indicate willingness to be considered for vacant alternate member seats shall not be considered.

    (iv) Each independent producer or producer affiliated with cooperative marketing association(s) handling less than 10 percent of the total raisin acquisitions during the preceding crop year shall cast only one vote with respect to each position for which nominations are to be made. Write-in candidates shall be accepted. The person receiving the most votes with respect to each position to be filled, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section, shall be the person to be certified to the Secretary as the nominee. The committee may, subject to the approval of the Secretary, establish rules and regulations to effectuate this section

    5. In § 989.53(a), revise the introductory text and remove the text that follows paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
    § 989.53 Research and development.

    (a) General. The Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish or provide for the establishment of projects involving production research, market research and development, marketing promotion including paid advertising, designed to assist, improve, or promote the production, marketing, distribution, and consumption of raisins in domestic and foreign markets. These projects may include, but need not be limited to those designed to:

    6. In § 989.54: a. Remove paragraphs (a) through (d) and (g); b. Remove paragraph (e)(4); c. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(5) through (e)(10) as (e)(4) through (e)(9), respectively; d. Redesignate paragraphs (e), (f), and (h) as paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), respectively; and e. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(5) and (c).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 989.54 Marketing policy.

    (a) Each crop year, the Committee shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a report setting forth its recommended marketing policy, including quality regulations for the pending crop. In developing the marketing policy, the Committee may give consideration to the production, harvesting, processing, and storage conditions of that crop, as well as the following factors:

    (1) The estimated tonnage held by producers and handlers at the beginning of the crop year;

    (4) An estimated desirable carryout at the end of the crop year;

    (5) The estimated market demand for raisins, considering the estimated world raisin supply and demand situation;

    (c) Publicity. The Committee shall promptly give reasonable publicity to producers, dehydrators, handlers, and the cooperative bargaining association(s) of each meeting to consider a marketing policy or any modification thereof, and each such meeting shall be open to them. Similar publicity shall be given to producers, dehydrators, handlers, and the cooperative bargaining association(s) of each marketing policy report or modification thereof, filed with the Secretary and of the Secretary's action thereon. Copies of all marketing policy reports shall be maintained in the office of the Committee, where they shall be made available for examination by any producer, dehydrator, handler, or cooperative bargaining association representative. The Committee shall notify handlers, dehydrators and the cooperative bargaining association(s), and give reasonable publicity to producers of its computation.

    7. Sections 989.55 and 989.56 are removed. 8. The heading prior to § 989.58 “Grade and Condition Standards” is revised to read as follows: “GRADE, QUALITY, AND CONDITION STANDARDS”. 9. In § 989.58, revise paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(1), (e)(1), and (e)(4) to read as follows:
    § 989.58 Natural condition raisins.

    (a) Regulation. No handler shall acquire or receive natural condition raisins which fail to meet such minimum grade, quality, and condition standards as the committee may establish, with the approval of the Secretary, in applicable rules and regulations: Provided, That a handler may receive raisins for inspection, may receive off-grade raisins for reconditioning and may receive or acquire off-grade raisins for use in eligible non-normal outlets: And provided further, That a handler may acquire natural condition raisins which exceed the tolerance established for maturity under a weight dockage system established pursuant to rules and regulations recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall apply to the acquisition or receipt of natural condition raisins of a particular varietal type for which minimum grade, quality, and condition standards are not applicable or then in effect pursuant to this part.

    (b) Changes in minimum grade, quality, and condition standards for natural condition raisins. The committee may recommend to the Secretary changes in the minimum grade, quality, and condition standards for natural condition raisins of any varietal type and may recommend to the Secretary that minimum grade, quality, and condition standards for any varietal type be added to or deleted. The committee shall submit with its recommendation all data and information upon which it acted in making its recommendation, and such other information as the Secretary may request. The Secretary shall approve any such change if he finds, upon the basis of data submitted to him by the committee or from other pertinent information available to him, that to do so would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act.

    (d) * * *

    (1) Each handler shall cause an inspection and certification to be made of all natural condition raisins acquired or received by him, except with respect to:

    (i) An interplant or interhandler transfer of offgrade raisins as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, unless such inspection and certification are required by rules and procedures made effective pursuant to this amended subpart;

    (ii) An interplant or interhandler transfer of standard raisins as described in § 989.59(e);

    (iii) Raisins received from a dehydrator which have been previously inspected pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section;

    (iv) Any raisins for which minimum grade, quality, and condition standards are not then in effect;

    (v) Raisins received from a cooperative bargaining association which have been inspected and are in compliance with requirements established pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section; and

    (vi) Any raisins, if permitted in accordance with such rules and procedures as the committee may establish with the approval of the Secretary, acquired or received for disposition in eligible non-normal outlets. Except as otherwise provided in this section, prior to blending raisins, acquiring raisins, storing raisins, reconditioning raisins, or acquiring raisins which have been reconditioned, each handler shall obtain an inspection certification showing whether or not the raisins meet the applicable grade, quality, and condition standards: Provided, That the initial inspection for infestation shall not be required if the raisins are fumigated in accordance with such rules and procedures as the committee shall establish with the approval of the Secretary. The handler shall submit or cause to be submitted to the committee a copy of such certification, together with such other documents or records as the committee may require. Such certification shall be issued by inspectors of the Processed Products Standardization and Inspection Branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, unless the committee determines, and the Secretary concurs in such determination, that inspection by another agency would improve the administration of this amended subpart. The committee may require that raisins held on memorandum receipt be re-inspected and certified as a condition for their acquisition by a handler.

    (e) * * *

    (1) Any natural condition raisins tendered to a handler which fail to meet the applicable minimum grade, quality, and condition standards may:

    (i) Be received or acquired by the handler for disposition, without further inspection, in eligible non-normal outlets;

    (ii) Be returned unstemmed to the person tendering the raisins; or

    (iii) Be received by the handler for reconditioning. Off-grade raisins received by a handler under any one of the three described categories may be changed to any other of the categories under such rules and procedures as the committee, with the approval of the Secretary, shall establish. No handler shall ship or otherwise dispose of off-grade raisins which he does not return to the tenderer, transfer to another handler as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, or recondition so that they at least meet the minimum standards prescribed in or pursuant to this amended subpart, except into eligible non-normal outlets.

    (4) If the handler is to acquire the raisins after they are reconditioned, his obligation with respect to such raisins shall be based on the weight of the raisins (if stemmed, adjusted to natural condition weight) after they have been reconditioned.

    10. In § 989.59, revise paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), and (g) to read as follows:
    § 989.59 Regulation of the handling of raisins subsequent to their acquisition by handlers.

    (a) Regulation. Unless otherwise provided in this part, no handler shall:

    (1) Ship or otherwise make final disposition of natural condition raisins unless they at least meet the effective and applicable minimum grade, quality, and condition standards for natural condition raisins; or

    (2) Ship or otherwise make final disposition of packed raisins unless they at least meet such minimum grade quality, and condition standards established by the committee, with the approval of the Secretary, in applicable rules and regulations or as later changed or prescribed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section: Provided, That nothing contained in this paragraph shall prohibit the shipment or final disposition of any raisins of a particular varietal type for which minimum standards are not applicable or then in effect pursuant to this part. And provided further, That a handler may grind raisins, which do not meet the minimum grade, quality, and condition standards for packed raisins because of mechanical damage or sugaring, into a raisin paste. The Committee may establish, with approval of the Secretary, different grade, quality, and condition regulations for different markets.

    (b) The committee may recommend changes in the minimum grade, quality, or condition standards for packed raisins of any varietal type and may recommend to the Secretary that minimum grade, quality, or condition standards for any varietal type be added or deleted. The committee shall submit with its recommendation all data and information upon which it acted in making its recommendation, and such other information as the Secretary may request. The Secretary shall approve any such change if he finds, upon the basis of data submitted to him by the committee or from other pertinent information available to him, that to do so would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act.

    (d) Inspection and certification. Unless otherwise provided in this section, each handler shall, at his own expense, before shipping or otherwise making final disposition of raisins, cause and inspection to be made of such raisins to determine whether they meet the then applicable minimum grade, quality, and condition standards for natural condition raisins or the then applicable minimum standards for packed raisins. Such handler shall obtain a certificate that such raisins meet the aforementioned applicable minimum standards and shall submit or cause to be submitted to the committee a copy of such certificate together with such other documents or records as the committee may require. The certificate shall be issued by the Processed Products Standardization and Inspection Branch of the United States Department of Agriculture, unless the committee determines, and the Secretary concurs in such determination, that inspection by another agency will improve the administration of this amended subpart. Any certificate issued pursuant to this paragraph shall be valid only for such period of time as the committee may specify, with the approval of the Secretary, in appropriate rules and regulations.

    (e) Inter-plant and inter-handler transfers. Any handler may transfer from his plant to his own or another handler's plant within the State of California any raisins without having had such raisins inspected as provided in paragraph (d) of this section. The transferring handler shall transmit promptly to the committee a report of such transfer, except that transfers between plants owned or operated by the same handler need not be reported. Before shipping or otherwise making final disposition of such raisins, the receiving handler shall comply with the requirements of this section.

    (g) Exemption of experimental and specialty packs. The committee may establish, with the approval of the Secretary, rules and procedures providing for the exemption of raisins in experimental and specialty packs from one or more of the requirements of the minimum grade, quality, or condition standards of this section, together with the inspection and certification requirements if applicable.

    11. Section 989.60(a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 989.60 Exemption.

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this amended subpart, the committee may establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such rules and procedures as may be necessary to permit the acquisition and disposition of any off-grade raisins, free from any or all regulations, for uses in non-normal outlets.

    12. Section 989.61 is revised to read as follows:
    § 989.61 Above parity situations.

    The provisions of this part relating to minimum grade, quality, and condition standards and inspection requirements, within the meaning of section 2(3) of the act, and any other provisions pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the order, shall continue in effect irrespective of whether the estimated season average price to producers for raisins is in excess of the parity level specified in section 2(1) of the act.

    13. The heading “VOLUME REGULATION” prior to § 989.65 is removed. 14. Sections 989.65, 989.66, and 989.67 are removed. 15. Redesignate § 989.70 as § 989.96. 16. Sections 989.71, and 989.72 are removed. 17. Section 989.73 (b) is revised to read as follows:
    § 989.73 Reports.

    (b) Acquisition reports. Each handler shall submit to the committee in accordance with such rules and procedures as are prescribed by the committee, with the approval of the Secretary, certified reports, for such periods as the committee may require, with respect to his acquisitions of each varietal type of raisins during the particular period covered by such report, which report shall include, but not be limited to:

    (1) The total quantity of standard raisins acquired;

    (2) The total quantity of off-grade raisins acquired pursuant to § 989.58(e)(1)(i); and

    (3) Cumulative totals of such acquisitions from the beginning of the then current crop year to and including the end of the period for which the report is made. Upon written application made to the committee, a handler may be relieved of submitting such reports after completing his packing operations for the season. Upon request of the committee, each handler shall furnish to the committee, in such manner and at such times as it may require, the name and address of each person from whom he acquired raisins and the quantity of each varietal type of raisins acquired from each such person.

    18. Section 989.79 is revised to read as follows:
    § 989.79 Expenses.

    The committee is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred by it during each crop year, for the maintenance and functioning of the committee and for such purposes as he may, pursuant to this subpart, determine to be appropriate. The funds to cover such expenses shall be obtained levying assessments as provided in § 989.80. The committee shall file with the Secretary for each crop year a proposed budget of these expenses and a proposal as to the assessment rate to be fixed pursuant to § 989.80, together with a report thereon. Such filing shall be not later than October 5 of the crop year, but this date may be extended by the committee not more than 5 days if warranted by a late crop.

    19. In § 989.80, revise paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as follows:
    § 989.80 Assessments.

    (a) Each handler shall pay to the committee, upon demand, his pro rata share of the expenses which the Secretary finds will be incurred, as aforesaid, by the committee during each crop year less any amounts credited pursuant to § 989.53. Such handler's pro rata share of such expenses shall be equal to the ratio between the total raisin tonnage acquired by such handler during the applicable crop year and the total raisin tonnage acquired by all handlers during the same crop year.

    (b) Each handler who reconditions off-grade raisins but does not acquire the standard raisins recovered therefrom shall, with respect to his assessable portion of all such standard raisins, pay to the committee, upon demand, his pro rata share of the expenses which the Secretary finds will be incurred by the committee each crop year. Such handler's pro rata share of such expenses shall be equal to the ratio between the handler's assessable portion (which shall be a quantity equal to such handler's standard raisins which are acquired by some other handler or handlers) during the applicable crop year and the total raisin tonnage acquired by all handlers.

    (c) The Secretary shall fix the rate of assessment to be paid by all handlers on the basis of a specified rate per ton. At any time during or after a crop year, the Secretary may increase the rate of assessment to obtain sufficient funds to cover any later finding by the Secretary relative to the expenses of the committee. Each handler shall pay such additional assessment to the committee upon demand. In order to provide funds to carry out the functions of the committee, the committee may accept advance payments from any handler to be credited toward such assessments as may be levied pursuant to this section against such handler during the crop year. The payment of assessments for the maintenance and functioning of the committee, and for such purposes as the Secretary may pursuant to this subpart determine to be appropriate, may be required under this part throughout the period it is in effect, irrespective of whether particular provisions thereof are suspended or become inoperative.

    20. Section 989.82 is removed. 21. Section 989.84 is revised to read as follows:
    § 989.84 Disposition limitation.

    No handler shall dispose of standard raisins, off-grade raisins, or other failing raisins, except in accordance with the provisions of this subpart or pursuant to regulations issued by the committee.

    22. In § 989.91: a. Redesignate paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively, and; b. Add a new paragraph (c).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 989.91 Suspension or termination.

    (c) No less than five crop years and no later than six crop years after the effective date of this amendment, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum to ascertain whether continuance of this part is favored by producers. Subsequent referenda to ascertain continuance shall be conducted every six crop years thereafter. The Secretary may terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any crop year in which the Secretary has found that continuance of this part is not favored by a two-thirds majority of voting producers, or a two-thirds majority of volume represented thereby, who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production for market of grapes used in the production of raisins in the State of California. Such termination shall be announced on or before the end of the crop year.

    23. Section 989.129 is revised to read as follows:
    § 989.129 Voting at nomination meetings.

    Any person (defined in § 989.3 as an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other business unit) who is engaged, in a proprietary capacity, in the production of grapes which are sun-dried or dehydrated by artificial means to produce raisins and who qualifies under the provisions of § 989.29(b)(2) shall be eligible to cast one ballot for a nominee for each producer member position and one ballot for a nominee for each producer alternate member position on the committee which is to be filled for his district. Such person must be the one who or which: (a) Owns and farms land resulting in his or its ownership of such grapes produced thereon; (b) rents and farms land, resulting in his or its ownership of all or a portion of such grapes produced thereon; or (c) owns land which he or it does not farm and, as rental for such land, obtains the ownership of a portion of such grapes or the raisins. In this connection, a partnership shall be deemed to include two or more persons (including a husband and wife) with respect to land the title to which, or leasehold interest in which, is vested in them as tenants in common, joint tenants, or under community property laws, as community property. In a landlord-tenant relationship, wherein each of the parties is a producer, each such producer shall be entitled to one vote for a nominee for each producer member position and one vote for each producer alternate member position. Hence, where two persons operate land as landlord and tenant on a share-crop basis, each person is entitled to one vote for each such position to be filled. Where land is leased on a cash rental basis, only the person who is the tenant or cash renter (producer) is entitled to vote. A partnership or corporation, when eligible, is entitled to cast only one vote for a nominee for each producer position to be filled in its district.

    24. Sections 989.154 and 989.156 are removed. 25. Section 989.158(c)(4)(i) is revised to read as follows:
    § 989.158 Natural condition raisins.

    (c) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) The handler shall notify the inspection service at least one business day in advance of the time such handler plans to begin reconditioning each lot of raisins, unless a shorter period is acceptable to the inspection service. Such notification shall be provided verbally or by other means of communication, including email. Natural condition raisins which have been reconditioned shall continue to be considered natural condition raisins for purposes of reinspection (inspection pursuant to § 989.58(d)) after such reconditioning has been completed, if no water or moisture has been added; otherwise, such raisins shall be considered as packed raisins. The weight of the raisins reconditioned successfully shall be determined by reweighing, except where a lot, before reconditioning, failed due to excess moisture only. The weight of such raisins resulting from reconditioning a lot failing account excess moisture may be determined by deducting 1.2 percent of the weight for each percent of moisture in excess of the allowable tolerance. When necessary due to the presence of sand, as determined by the inspection service, the requirement for deducting sand tare and the manner of its determination, as prescribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, shall apply in computing the net weight of any such successfully reconditioned natural condition raisins. The weight of the reconditioned raisins acquired as packed raisins shall be adjusted to natural condition weight by the use of factors applicable to the various degrees of processing accomplished. The applicable factor shall be that selected by the inspector of the reconditioned raisins from among factors established by the Committee with the approval of the Secretary.

    26. The heading “Volume Regulation” prior to § 989.166 is removed. 27. Sections 989.166 and 989.167 are removed. 28. In § 989.173: a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b)(2)(i), b. Remove paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), (f), and (g)(1)(ii); c. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2)(iii), (g) and (g)(1)(iii) as paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), (f) and (f)(1)(ii), respectively; and d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2)(ii), paragraph (c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(1)(v), and newly redesignated paragraph (f).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 989.173 Reports.

    (a) Inventory reports. Each handler shall submit to the Committee as of the close of business on July 31 of each crop year, and not later than the following August 6, an inventory report which shall show, with respect to each varietal type of raisins held by such handler, the quantity of off-grade raisins segregated as to those for reconditioning and those for disposition as such. Provided, That, for the Other Seedless varietal type, handlers shall report the information required in this paragraph separately for the different types of Other Seedless raisins. Upon request by the Committee, each handler shall file at other times, and as of other dates, any of the said information which may reasonably be necessary and which the Committee shall specify in its request.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) The total net weight of the standard raisins acquired during the reporting period; and

    (ii) The cumulative totals of such acquisitions from the beginning of the then current crop year.

    (c) * * *

    (1) Each month each handler who is not a processor shall furnish to the Committee, on an appropriate form provided by the Committee and so that it is received by the Committee not later than the seventh day of the month, a report showing the aggregate quantity of each varietal type of packed raisins and standard natural condition raisins which were shipped or otherwise disposed of by such handler during the preceding month (exclusive of transfers within the State of California between plants of any such handler and from such handler to other handlers): Provided, That, for the Other Seedless varietal type, handlers shall report such information for the different types of Other Seedless raisins. Such required information shall be segregated as to:

    (d) * * *

    (1) Any handler who transfers raisins to another handler within the State of California shall submit to the Committee not later than five calendar days following such transfer a report showing:

    (v) If packed, the transferring handler shall certify that such handler is transferring only acquired raisins that meet all applicable marketing order requirements, including reporting, incoming inspection, and assessments.

    (f) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) The quantity of raisins, segregated as to locations where they are stored and whether they are natural condition or packed;

    (ii) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) The total net weight of the standard raisins acquired during the reporting period; and

    (3) Disposition report of organically-produced raisins. No later than the seventh day of each month, handlers who are not processors shall submit to the Committee, on an appropriate form provided by the Committee, a report showing the aggregate quantity of packed raisins and standard natural condition raisins which were shipped or otherwise disposed of by such handler during the preceding month (exclusive of transfer within the State of California between the plants of any such handler and from such handler to other handlers). Such information shall include:

    29. In § 989.210: a. Remove paragraphs (b), (c) and (e); b. Redesignate paragraph (d) as (b), paragraph (f) as (c), and paragraph (g) as (d); and c. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (b).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 989.210 Handling of varietal types of raisins acquired pursuant to a weight dockage system.

    (b) Assessments. Assessments on any lot of raisins of the varietal types specified in paragraph (a) of this section acquired by a handler pursuant to a weight dockage system shall be applicable to the creditable weight of such lot.

    30. Sections 989.221 and 989.257 are removed. 31. The subpart heading “Subpart-Schedule of Payments” prior to § 989.401 is removed. 32. Section 989.401 is removed. 33. In part 989 all references of “offgrade” are revised to read “off-grade”. 34. In part 989 all references to “nonnormal” are revised to read “non-normal”. 35. In part 989 all references to “committee” are revised to read “Committee”. 36. In the list below, for each section indicated in the left column, remove the title indicated in the middle column from wherever it appears in the section, and add the title indicated in the right column: Section Remove Add 989.58(d) Processed Products Standardization and Inspection Branch Specialty Crops Inspection Division. 989.59(d) Processed Products Standardization and Inspection Branch Specialty Crops Inspection Division. 989.102 Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division Specialty Crops Inspection Division. Dated: May 3, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09242 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0495; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-017-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by development of a modification to prevent uncommanded rudder movement during flight. This proposed AD would require modifying the wiring harness of the yaw damper control system. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; 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.

    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-2017-0495; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar 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:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0495; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-017-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-06, effective February 14, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    [Canadian] AD CF-2013-13 was issued on 28 May 2013 [related to FAA AD 2013-14-11, Amendment 39-17516 (78 FR 44781, July 25, 2013) (“AD 2013-14-11”)] to mandate the introduction of an emergency procedure to the Aeroplane Flight Manual to address the uncommanded rudder movement.

    Since the original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-13, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a wiring modification for the yaw damper control system to prevent uncommanded movement of the rudder [and consequent loss of the ability to control the airplane].

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the wiring modification for the yaw damper control system * * *.

    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-2017-0495.

    Related Rulemaking

    On July 11, 2013, we issued AD 2013-14-11, applicable to all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight manual by incorporating an emergency procedure for uncommanded yaw motion. That AD was prompted by reports of airplanes experiencing uncommanded rudder movements while in flight. That AD was issued to advise the flightcrew of procedures to address a possible failure of the voltage regulator inside the yaw damper actuator that could lead to uncommanded rudder movement and consequent loss of the ability to control the airplane.

    Since issuance of AD 2013-14-11, a wiring modification for the yaw damper control system has been developed to prevent uncommanded rudder movement.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-017, Revision C, dated May 11, 2016; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-22-007, Revision A, dated February 16, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying the wiring harness of the yaw damper control system. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,006 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Wiring modification 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 Up to $39 Up to $464 Up to $466,784.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed 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 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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0495; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-017-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto Flight.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by development of a modification to prevent uncommanded rudder movement during flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded rudder movement and consequent loss of the ability to control the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification

    Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Modify the wiring harness of the yaw damper control system, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD Airplane model Airplane serial numbers Applicable Service Bulletin CL-600-2B19 7002 through 8999 inclusive Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-017, Revision C, dated May 11, 2016. CL-600-2C10 10002 through 10344 inclusive Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-22-007, Revision A, dated February 16, 2016. CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 15001 through 15400 inclusive (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) 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 specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), or (h)(1)(iii) of this AD, which is applicable to Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-017, dated September 24, 2014, in conjunction with Bombardier Service Non-Incorporated Engineering Order (SNIEO) K601R50211 S02, dated October 31, 2014.

    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-017, Revision A, dated February 26, 2015, in conjunction with Bombardier SNIEO K601R50211 S03, dated April 21, 2015; or S04, dated April 24, 2015.

    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-017, Revision B, dated July 16, 2015.

    (2) 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 Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-22-007, dated October 15, 2014, which is applicable to Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.

    (i) Parts Installation Limitations

    As of 24 months after the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a yaw damper actuator having part number 622-9968-001, unless it has been modified in accordance with the applicable service information specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (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 New York ACO, send it to ATTN: 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. 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 Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-06, effective February 14, 2017, 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-2017-0495.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10544 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0513; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-152-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a quality review of delivered airplanes, which identified a manufacturing deficiency of some engine air inlet anti-ice “piccolo” tubes. This proposed AD would require inspecting each anti-ice “piccolo” tube assembly of certain engine air inlets for discrepancies, and doing corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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.

    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-2017-0513; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0513; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-152-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0168, dated August 17, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A quality review of recently delivered aeroplanes identified a manufacturing deficiency of some engine air inlet anti-ice “piccolo” tubes.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced performance of the engine anti-ice protection system, with consequent ice accretion and ingestion, possibly resulting in dual engine power loss and reduced control of an aeroplane.

    The subsequent investigation demonstrated that, for engines equipped with an air inlet affected by the manufacturing deficiency, operating an engine at or above the minimum N1 value applicable for combined wing and engine anti-ice operations provides efficient engine anti-ice performance during stand-alone engine anti-ice operation.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued EASA AD 2015-0101-E (later revised) to require amendment of the applicable Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) for aeroplanes having engine air inlets Part Number (P/N) 06ND71600-1 not marked NORDAM Rework Kit (or “NRK”) on the associated data plate.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault Aviation published Service Bulletin (SB) F2000EX-384 (later revised), providing instructions for a one-time inspection and applicable corrective actions, to recover the full operational capability of the aeroplanes equipped with affected parts.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD supersedes EASA AD 2015-0102R1, retaining its requirements, [and] additionally requires a one-time inspection of each affected anti-ice “piccolo” tube assembly and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions. This [EASA] AD also prohibits installation of an affected part on an aeroplane.

    The required actions include a detailed inspection and borescope inspection for discrepancies, which include determining if the opening diameter of the anti-ice tube assembly is incorrect or the perforation holes are blocked by residue. The corrective actions include repair or rework, 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-2017-0513.

    Other Related Rulemaking

    On June 19, 2015, we issued AD 2015-13-08, Amendment 39-18195 (80 FR 37150, June 30, 2015) (“AD 2015-13-08”), applicable to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight manual to include a procedure for addressing minimum fan speed rotation (N1) values during stand-alone engine anti-ice system operation for engines equipped with certain air inlets. That AD was prompted by a quality review of certain delivered airplanes, which identified a manufacturing deficiency of some engine air inlet anti-ice “piccolo” tubes. The actions required by that AD are intended to detect and correct reduced performance of the engine anti-ice protection system, leading to ice accretion and ingestion into the engines, which could result in dual engine power loss and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    Actions Since Issuance of AD 2015-13-08

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2015-13-08. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require inspections and corrective actions of the anti-ice “piccolo” tube assembly of the engine air inlet. Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2015-13-08.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Dassault Falcon 2000EX Service Bulletin F2000EX-384, Revision 1, dated March 1, 2016. This service information describes procedures for inspecting each anti-ice “piccolo” tube assembly of each engine air inlet for discrepancies, and corrective actions. 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 Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 181 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 $0 $425 $76,925

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Rework anti-ice tube assembly 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $1,711 $1,881
    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2017-0513; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-152-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2015-13-08, Amendment 39-18195 (80 FR 37150, June 30, 2015) (“AD 2015-13-08”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a quality review of certain delivered airplanes, which identified a manufacturing deficiency of certain engine air inlet anti-ice “piccolo” tubes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of each anti-ice “piccolo” tube assembly of certain engine air inlets; this condition could result in reduced performance of the engine anti-ice protection system, leading to ice accretion and ingestion into the engines, and possibly resulting in dual engine power loss and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    For airplanes other than those on which an engine air inlet having part number (P/N) 06ND71600-1, with a marking “NTR-RKFAL97” “NTR-RKFAL98,” “F2000EX-384,” or “F2000EX-384-R1” on the air inlet data plate has been incorporated on both engines: Within 1,300 flight hours or 26 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first; inspect each anti-ice “piccolo” tube assembly of each engine air inlet for discrepancies (i.e., an incorrect opening diameter of the anti-ice tube assembly or perforation holes blocked by residue), and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Falcon 2000EX Service Bulletin F2000EX-384, Revision 1, dated March 1, 2016; except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (h) Service Information Exception

    Where Dassault Falcon 2000EX Service Bulletin F2000EX-384, Revision 1, dated March 1, 2016, specifies to contact Dassault for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all the requirements of AD 2015-13-08 for that airplane.

    (j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, installation of an engine air inlet having part number (P/N) 06ND71600-1 on any airplane is allowed, provided the engine air inlet data plate shows the marking “NTR-RKFAL97,” “NTR-RKFAL98,” “F2000EX-384,” or “F2000EX-384-R1.”

    (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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0168, dated August 17, 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-2017-0513.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10980 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0520; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-143-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt 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 proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks initiating at the upper radius of frame (FR) 47 and a determination that the current inspection procedure is not reliable in detecting certain cracking of the forward fitting of FR 47. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of FR 47, and related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, 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.

    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-2017-0520; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    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: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0520; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-143-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0150, dated July 25, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all. The MCAI states:

    During scheduled maintenance inspections on the fuselage, cracks initiating at the upper radius of frame (FR) 47 have been reported on several aeroplanes. Similar damage was also discovered on the A300 fatigue test fuselage.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-0246, SB A300-53-6029 and SB A300-53-9014 to provide inspection instructions and, consequently, DGAC France issued AD F-2006-016 to require repetitive inspections and corrective action.

    Since that [French] AD was issued, further investigation led to the conclusion that the current ultrasonic inspection performed in accordance with Airbus SB A300-53-0246 Revision 06, or SB A300-53-6029 Revision 08, or SB A300-53-9014 Revision 01, as applicable, was not reliable to detect deep crack going downward.

    Consequently, to ensure the crack depth is correctly measured whatever the crack direction, Airbus developed a new nondestructive testing method [eddy current] for this special detailed inspection (SDI) and revised the affected SBs accordingly.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2006-016, which is superseded, but requires the accomplishment of repetitive SDI to replace the previously required ultrasonic inspections [and related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary].

    Related investigative actions include an ultrasonic inspection for cracking on the forward face of forward fitting and a detailed inspection for cracking of the aft fitting around the fasteners. Corrective actions include crack repairs, modification of the sealing fittings and sealing shims. This proposed AD requires reporting of the inspection results to Airbus. 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-2017-0520.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 08, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016 (for Model A300 series airplanes); and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 12, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes). The service information describes procedures for doing an SDI for cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the fuselage, and related investigative actions and corrective actions. 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 Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2007-26-14, Amendment 39-15316 (73 FR 2803, January 16, 2008). Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of FR 47, and related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2007-26-14 for the inspected airplane.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Although the MCAI and service information allow further flight if cracks are found during accomplishment of the required action, this proposed AD requires that any cracking be repaired before further flight.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 132 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 19 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,615 $0 $1,615 per inspection cycle $213,180 per inspection cycle. Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 $85 per inspection cycle $11,220 per inspection cycle.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary related investigative and corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Related investigative and Corrective actions 21 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,785 $1,835 $3,620
    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 proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0520; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-143-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2007-26-14, Amendment 39-15316 (73 FR 2803, January 16, 2008) (“AD 2007-26-14”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, except airplanes that have been repaired as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0370 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6144, as applicable.

    (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 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks initiating at the upper radius of frame (FR) 47 and a determination that the current inspection procedure is not reliable in detecting certain cracking of the forward fitting of FR 47. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the fuselage, which could propagate and 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 required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before exceeding 10,000 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, do a special detailed inspection (SDI) for cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,150 flight cycles, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 08, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 12, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016.

    (h) Initial Inspection for Airplanes Previously Inspected

    For airplanes previously inspected as specified in the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this AD and on which no cracking was found: Within 4,150 flight cycles after the most recent inspection, do the inspection for cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 06, dated October 19, 2005.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 07, dated September 9, 2008.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 08, dated October 19, 2005.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 09, dated September 9, 2008.

    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 10, dated July 9, 2009.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 11, dated September 28, 2009.

    (i) Inspections for Airplanes With Abnormal Load Events

    For airplanes on which any crack was found during any inspection done as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, as applicable, and on which any abnormal load event, such as hard landing or flight in excessive turbulence, occurred within 3 months before the effective date of this AD or occurs on or after the effective date of this AD: Within 3 months after each event, accomplish an SDI for cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius, left-hand and right-hand sides of the fuselage, in accordance with the applicable Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. If, during this 3-month period, another abnormal load event occurs, and if no SDI has yet been accomplished, before further flight after the second event, obtain corrective action instructions from 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), and accomplish those instructions accordingly.

    (j) Corrective Actions for Airplanes With Cracks

    If, during any SDI as required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, do the applicable related investigative actions and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, and obtain additional corrective action instructions from the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA, and accomplish those instructions accordingly before further flight.

    (k) Reporting

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of each SDI inspection required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/), at the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.

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

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

    (l) Terminating Action for AD 2007-26-14

    Accomplishing any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2007-26-14 for the inspected airplane.

    (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 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: 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 AD 2016-0150, dated July 25, 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-2017-0520.

    (2) For more information about this AD, 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.

    (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. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 19, 2017. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10979 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0516; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-125-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-23-12, for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. AD 2015-23-12 currently requires identifying the serial number and part number of the main landing gear (MLG) rear hinge pins, and replacing pins or the MLG if necessary. Since we issued AD 2015-23-12, we have received a new report of a certain cracked MLG hinge pin on a Model ATR42 airplane. We have determined that certain additional MLG hinge pins must be replaced, and certain compliance times must be reduced. This proposed AD would require identifying the serial number and part number of the MLG rear hinge pins, and replacing pins if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.aerochain.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.

    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-2017-0516; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    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: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0516; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-125-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On November 12, 2015, we issued AD 2015-23-12, Amendment 39-18329 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015) (“AD 2015-23-12”), for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. AD 2015-23-12 was prompted by new occurrences of certain cracked MLG rear hinge pins. AD 2015-23-12 requires identifying the serial number and part number of the MLG rear hinge pins, and replacing pins or the MLG if necessary. We issued AD 2015-23-12 to detect and correct cracked rear hinge pins, which could lead to MLG structural failure, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG and consequent injury to the occupants of the airplane.

    Since we issued AD 2015-23-12, we have received a new report of a cracked MLG hinge pin having P/N D62055 on a Model ATR42 airplane. We have determined that certain additional MLG hinge pins must be replaced, and certain compliance times must be reduced.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0135, dated July 8, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by cases of rupture of main landing gear (MLG) rear hinge pin part number (P/N) D61000 encountered in service in 1994 and 1996, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 96-131-064 (B) for ATR42 aeroplanes and AD 96-096-029 (B) for ATR72 aeroplanes to require inspection and, depending on findings, corrective action. Since those [French] ADs were issued, new occurrences of cracked rear hinge pin P/N [part number] D61000 were reported on ATR72 MLG. The result of subsequent investigation revealed that the affected pins were subjected to a non-detected thermal abuse done in production during grinding process. Analysis also showed that other MLG pin P/N's could be affected by the same production issue.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to structural failure and consequent collapse of the MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2014-0074 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2015-23-12] to require inspection and, depending on findings, replacement of affected pins.

    After EASA AD 2014-0074 was issued, a new occurrence was reported of a cracked MLG hinge pin P/N D62055 installed on the MLG Side Brace of an ATR42 aeroplane. This new occurrence was also identified as related to a non-detected thermal abuse done in production during grinding process.

    Prompted by this new occurrence, Messier Bugatti Dowty (MBD) updated the list of MLG hinge pins affected by this unsafe condition by adding serial numbers (S/N), which were previously not considered by EASA AD 2014-0074. In addition, it was determined that the compliance time for replacement of pins with P/N D62055 must be reduced. The six affected MBD Service Bulletins (SB) were revised accordingly, and six new ones were also published to address this issue.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0074, which is superseded, but addresses an expanded MLG hinge pin population with appropriate compliance time(s).

    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-2017-0516. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Messier-Bugatti-Dowty has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for inspecting and replacing the MLG hinge pin. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models and different MLG hinge pin part numbers.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-213, Revision 2, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-214, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-215, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 3, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-219, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-220, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-224, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-231, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-232, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-233, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-234, dated March 15, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin 631-32-235, dated March 15, 2016.

    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 Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    In MCAI table 1 and table 2, the MCAI specifies the compliance time terminology, “whichever occurs later,” between compliance time A and B. However, this proposed AD specifies the phrase, “whichever occurs first,” instead of “whichever occurs later.” This difference has been coordinated with EASA and ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 63 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2015-23-12, and retained in this proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $16,000 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2015-23-12 is $16,680 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $16,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,050,840, or $16,680 per product.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed 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 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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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) 2015-23-12, Amendment 39-18329 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015), and adding the following new AD: ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional: Docket No. FAA-2017-0516; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-125-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-23-12, Amendment 39-18329 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015) (“AD 2015-23-12”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes; and ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models; all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a new occurrence of a cracked main landing gear (MLG) rear hinge pin. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked rear hinge pins, which could lead to MLG structural failure, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG and consequent injury to the occupants of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Hinge Pin Identification and Replacement for Model ATR72 Airplanes, With Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2015-23-12, with terminating action. For Model ATR72 airplanes: Within 12 months after December 29, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-23-12), inspect for the serial number of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) MLG rear hinge pins having part number (P/N) D61000. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG rear hinge pins can be conclusively determined from that review. If a rear hinge pin having P/N D61000 has a serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable: Within 12 months after December 29, 2015, replace the pin with a serviceable part as identified in paragraph (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable. Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the inspection required by this paragraph. Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (m) or (o) of this AD terminates the actions required by this paragraph.

    (h) Retained Definition of Serviceable Hinge Pin for Model ATR72 Airplanes for Paragraph (g) of this AD, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the definition in paragraph (h) of AD 2015-23-12, with no changes. For Model ATR72 airplanes: For purposes of paragraph (g) of this AD, a serviceable MLG rear hinge pin is a pin that is specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) A hinge pin that is not identified in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable.

    (2) A hinge pin that has been inspected and reconditioned, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable.

    (i) Retained MLG Pin Identification and Replacement for Model ATR72 Airplanes, With Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2015-23-12, with terminating action. For Model ATR72 airplanes: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, inspect all LH and RH MLG pins for a part number and serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG pin can be conclusively determined from that review. If any affected MLG pin is found: At the earlier of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, replace the MLG with a serviceable MLG as identified in paragraph (j) of this AD, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the inspection for the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG rear hinge pins required by this paragraph. Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (m) or (o) of this AD terminates the actions required by this paragraph.

    (1) No later than the next MLG overhaul scheduled after December 29, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2105-23-12).

    (2) Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since installation of the MLG on an airplane since new or since last overhaul, as applicable.

    (j) Retained Definition of Serviceable MLG for Model ATR72 Airplanes for Paragraph (i) of this AD, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the definition in paragraph (j) of AD 2015-23-12, with no changes. For Model ATR72 airplanes: For purposes of paragraph (i) of this AD, a serviceable MLG is one that incorporates pins specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Pins that are not identified in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (2) Pins that have been inspected and reconditioned in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (k) Retained MLG Pin Identification and Replacement for Model ATR42 Airplanes, With Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2015-23-12, with terminating action. Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (m) or (o) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For Model ATR42 airplanes: Within the compliance time identified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect for any LH and RH MLG pins having a part number and serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG pin can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (i) No later than the next MLG overhaul scheduled after December 29, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-23-12).

    (ii) Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since installation of the MLG on an airplane since new or since last overhaul, as applicable.

    (2) If the MLG pin having a part number and serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable; is found to be installed during the identification required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, within the compliance time identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, replace the MLG with a serviceable MLG, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA DOA. For the purposes of this paragraph, a serviceable MLG is a part that has pins identified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Pins that are not listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (ii) Pins that have been inspected and reconditioned, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (l) New Requirement of This AD: Hinge Pin Identification

    Within the applicable compliance time specified in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of, the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD, as applicable to the airplane model and MLG hinge part number, identify the serial number (S/N) of the LH and RH MLG hinge pins. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG hinge pins can be conclusively determined from that review. Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g), (i), and (k)(1) of this AD.

    Figure 1 to Paragraphs (l) Through (p) of This AD—Model ATR72 Airplanes MLG Hinge part Nos. Applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletins Compliance time D60955, D60968, D60999, D61032, D61061 Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016, or
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-233, dated March 15, 2016
  • A or B, whichever occurs first:
  • A: Not later than the next scheduled MLG overhaul after the effective date of this AD.
  • B: Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since first installation of a MLG on an airplane since new, or since last overhaul, as applicable.
  • D61000 Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, Revision 2, dated March 15, 2016
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 3, dated March 15, 2016, or
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-232, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016
  • Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    Figure 2 to Paragraphs (l) Through (p) of This AD—Model ATR42 Airplanes MLG Hinge part Nos. Airplane model(s) Applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletins Compliance time D62054, D63823, D63825 All Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016, or
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-235, dated March 15, 2016
  • A or B, whichever occurs first:
  • A: Not later than the next scheduled MLG overhaul after the effective date of this AD.
  • B: Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since first installation of a MLG on an airplane since new, or since last overhaul, as applicable.
  • D56800, D56800-1, D56809, D56841, D57261, D57401, D57407, D58807, D62079 ATR42-300 Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, Revision 1, dated March 15, 2016, or
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-235, dated March 15, 2016
  • A or B, whichever occurs first:
  • A: Not later than the next scheduled MLG overhaul after the effective date of this AD.
  • B: Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since first installation of a MLG on an airplane since new, or since last overhaul, as applicable.
  • D62055 All Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-224,
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-231, or
  • Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-234
  • Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (m) New MLG Hinge Pin Replacement

    If, during the identification required by paragraph (l) of this AD, an MLG hinge pin with a serial number listed in the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin is found to be installed: Within the compliance time specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD, as applicable to airplane model and MLG hinge pin part number, replace each affected MLG hinge pin with a serviceable MLG hinge pin. The replacement must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD, as applicable to the airplane model and MLG hinge part number, except as required by paragraph (o) of this AD. Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD. Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph terminates the replacement required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (n) New Definition of Serviceable Hinge Pins for Paragraph (m) of This AD

    For the purpose of paragraph (m) of this AD, a serviceable MLG hinge pin is a pin that is specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD.

    (1) A hinge pin that does not belong to the identified batch as listed in the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD, as applicable to the airplane model and MLG hinge part number.

    (2) A hinge pin that can be identified, through the MLG maintenance records, as having been inspected and reconditioned in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD, as applicable to the airplane model and MLG hinge part number.

    (o) New MLG Hinge Pin Replacement Procedures

    If, during accomplishment of the MLG hinge pin replacement required by paragraph (m) of this AD, the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD does not specify the MLG hinge pin replacement procedure, do the MLG hinge pin replacement using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA DOA. Do the MLG hinge pin replacement at the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph terminates the hinge pin replacement required by paragraphs (g), (i), and (k)(2) of this AD.

    (p) New Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an MLG hinge pin having a part number identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD, and having a serial number defined in the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraphs (l) through (p) of this AD, as applicable to the airplane model and MLG hinge part number, unless the part can be conclusively identified, through the MLG maintenance records, as having been inspected and reconditioned in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin.

    (q) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph restates the credit provided in paragraph (l) of AD 2015-23-12, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before December 29, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2105-23-12), using Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, dated October 30, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD, if those actions were done before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraph (q)(2)(i) through (q)(2)(x) of this AD.

    (i) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, December 16, 2013, which was incorporated by reference on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015).

    (ii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (iii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014, which was incorporated by reference on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015).

    (iv) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014, which was incorporated by reference on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015).

    (v) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, dated October 30, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (vi) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 201, which was incorporated by reference on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015).

    (vii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 2, dated December 8, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (viii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014, which was incorporated by reference on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015).

    (ix) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014, which was incorporated by reference on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 73096, November 24, 2015).

    (x) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-232, dated December 8, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (r) 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 (s)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) 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.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-23-12 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (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 EASA; or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (s) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0135, dated July 8, 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-2017-0516.

    (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.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.aerochain.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 19, 2017. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10978 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0502; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-120-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a discovery of noncompliant rivets in the flight deck upper skin. This proposed AD would require replacement of noncompliant rivets. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet: http://www.dassaultfalcon.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.

    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-2017-0502; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0502; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-120-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2016-0124, dated June 22, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During an internal review of the manufacturing files, it was found that 20 rivets installed on the cockpit [(flight deck)] upper skin are not compliant with the original type design. Those 20 MGPL type rivets have a shank longer than necessary and, in case of a bird strike under maximum energy impact, the cockpit upper skin deformation would lead to interference between the rivet shank and the cockpit mounted overhead panel.

    This condition, if not corrected, could affect the functioning of essential flight control systems, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation published Service Bulletin (SB) 7X-176, providing instructions for replacement of the [noncompliant] rivets.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires removal of affected rivets and replacement with serviceable [solid-type] rivets compliant with original type design.

    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-2017-0502.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin 7X-176, dated February 3, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the airplane by replacing certain blind rivets installed on the flight deck skin panel with solid-type rivets. 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 Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S
  • operators
  • Modification 81 work-hours × $85 per hour = $6,885 $48 $6,933 $173,325
    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2017-0502; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-120-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 15 through 89 inclusive, 92 through 94 inclusive, 97 through 101 inclusive, 105, and 106.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Structures.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a discovery of noncompliant rivets in the flight deck upper skin. We are issuing this AD to prevent interference between the rivet shank and the flight deck mounted overhead panel when the flight deck upper skin deforms due to impact (e.g., bird strike); a condition, that if not corrected, could affect the functioning of essential flight control systems, and result in reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification

    Before exceeding 99 months or 4,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, modify the airplane by replacing certain MGPL type rivets installed on the flight deck skin panel with solid type-rivets, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-176, dated February 3, 2016.

    (h) 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 (i)(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 Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0124, dated June 22, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0502.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet: http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10977 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 74 [Docket No. FDA-2017-C-2902] Glo Eyes, LLC; Filing of Color Additive Petition AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Glo Eyes, LLC, proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of D&C Yellow No. 8 as a color additive in contact lens solution.

    DATES:

    The color additive petition was filed on April 18, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1075.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 7C0311), submitted by Glo Eyes, LLC, 5501 Highway 199, suite 202, Fort Worth, TX 76114. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in 21 CFR part 74, Listing of Color Additives Subject To Certification, to provide for the safe use of D&C Yellow No. 8 (principally the disodium salt of fluorescein) as a color additive in contact lens solution.

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(l) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: May 24, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11165 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 20 International Mailing Services: Mailing Services Rules Changes AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service is considering limiting First-Class Mail International® service to documents only.

    DATES:

    Comments on this advance notice are due July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor North, Washington, DC, by appointment only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Call 1-202-268-2906 in advance for an appointment. Email comments, containing the name and address of the commenter, may be sent to: [email protected], with a subject line of “First-Class Mail International.” Faxed comments are not accepted.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mico Milanovic at (202) 268-5348 or Sylvia Baylis at (202) 268-6464.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is an advance notice of the Postal Service's intent to modify some of its International Mailing rules to conform with the new Universal Postal Union (UPU) requirements for certain Letter Post mail, effective January 1, 2018. After lengthy deliberations, UPU member countries voted to identify and separate items by content as documents versus goods, for purposes of adopting a universal, world-wide standard.

    In order for the Postal Service to meet this new standard, the contents of First-Class Mail International postcard, letter, and large envelope (flat) mail; International Priority Airmail (IPA) postcard, letter, and large envelope (flat) mail; and International Surface Air Lift (ISAL) postcard, letter, and large envelope (flat) mail will be limited to documents.

    Effective January 1, 2018, mailers who wish to mail any type of goods, regardless of shape, must use First Class Package International Service or another available service. Technical details and proposed IMM changes will be published at a later date and before implementation.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11120 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0064; FRL-9962-76-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revisions to Allegheny County Health Department Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of updating the SIP to include administrative and definition amendments made to Allegheny County Health Department's (ACHD) Rules and Regulations Article XXI, Air Pollution Control. The amendments update the name of the Bureau of Environmental Quality to the Bureau of Environmental Health and revise the definition of “County Executive” to agree with the definition contained in the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth'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, 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.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0064 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. 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:

    Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, Revisions to Allegheny County Health Department Rules, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. 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.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10923 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0020]; FRL-9963-14-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Montana on September 8, 2016. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) and include updates to the citations and references to federal and state laws and regulations, updated links to sources of information, and provides clarity on how copies of federal regulations may be obtained. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are approving these SIP revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. This action is being taken in accordance with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0020 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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).

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views these as noncontroversial SIP revisions and anticipates no adverse comments. In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the date of the version of the federal regulations regarding air quality rules into the ARM. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    If the EPA receives no adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Please note that if the 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, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations Section of this Federal Register.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 12, 2017. Suzanne J. Bohan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10925 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0040; FRL-9963-13-Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Alaska: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Whenever a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is promulgated, each state must submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such standard, commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. On July 9, 2012, Alaska submitted a plan to address the infrastructure requirements for the lead (Pb) NAAQS promulgated on October 15, 2008. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the plan as meeting Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0040, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov. 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, 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:

    Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-6357; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Infrastructure Elements III. EPA Approach To Review of Infrastructure Submissions IV. EPA Evaluation V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb standards to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (µ/m3) (73 FR 66964). The CAA requires that states submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards, so-called infrastructure requirements. To help states, on October 14, 2011, the EPA issued guidance to address the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (2011 Guidance).1 In addition, the EPA issued general infrastructure guidance for multiple NAAQS (2013 Guidance).2 As noted in these guidance documents, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, states may certify that fact via a letter to the EPA.

    1 Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 14, 2011.

    2 Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, September 13, 2013.

    On July 9, 2012, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted to the EPA a certification that Alaska's SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and a number of other NAAQS.3 We note that this action only addresses infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and does not address certain interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS which we previously approved on August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45103).

    3 The July 9, 2012, submission also addressed infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS—which we approved in a series of actions on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60955), October 22, 2012 (77 FR 64425), August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45103), and November 10, 2014 (79 FR 66651).

    II. Infrastructure Elements

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emission limits that are designed to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS. The requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection, are listed below:

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

    • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.

    • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.

    • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.

    • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.

    • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.

    • 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and applicable requirements of part D.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

    • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.

    • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

    • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

    The EPA's guidance document clarified that two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather, are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) nor CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

    III. EPA Approach To Review of Infrastructure Submissions

    The EPA is taking action on the July 9, 2012 infrastructure submission from Alaska for purposes of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We previously approved the same submission as meeting infrastructure requirements for fine particulate matter and ozone standards (November 10, 2014, 79 FR 66651). In the preamble of our action, we published a discussion of the EPA's approach to review of these submissions. Please see our July 16, 2014 proposed rule for the detailed discussion (79 FR 41496, at page 41498).

    IV. EPA Evaluation 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.

    State submission: The submission cites laws set forth at Alaska Statutes (AS) Chapters 46.03 Environmental Conservation and 46.14 Air Quality Control, and regulations set forth at 18 AAC 50 Alaska Administrative Code Title 18 Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50 Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50). Relevant regulations are listed below:

    • 18 AAC 50.010: Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    • 18 AAC 50.015: Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions.

    • 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards Adopted by Reference.

    • 18 AAC 50.055: Industrial Processes and Fuel Burning Equipment.

    • 18 AAC 50.302: Construction Permits.

    • 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits.

    • 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions.

    • 18 AAC 50.502: Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection.

    • 18 AAC 50.508: Minor Permits Requested by the Owner or Operator.

    • 18 AAC 50.540: Minor Permit Application.

    • 18 AAC 50.542: Minor Permit Review and Issuance.

    EPA analysis: On September 19, 2014, the EPA approved numerous revisions to the Alaska SIP, including updates to 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards to reflect revisions to the NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS (79 FR 56268). Alaska generally regulates emissions of Pb through its SIP-approved major and minor new source review (NSR) permitting programs. There are no designated nonattainment areas in Alaska for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. However, the EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D, title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1). Regulations and other control measures for purposes of attainment planning under part D, title I of the CAA are due on a different schedule than infrastructure SIPs.

    Alaska's major NSR permitting rules in 18 AAC Chapter 50, Article 3 for attainment and unclassifiable areas, generally rely on the federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21, which are incorporated by reference into the Alaska SIP, to implement its SIP-approved PSD permitting program. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Alaska's PSD permitting rules on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). The current Alaska SIP-approved PSD program incorporates by reference specific regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 51.166 as of December 9, 2013.

    Alaska regulates minor stationary sources of Pb through its federally-approved minor NSR permitting program. Alaska's minor NSR permitting rules in 18 AAC Chapter 50, Article 5 were originally approved into the SIP on July 5, 1983, and the state has made updates and revisions to the program throughout the years. The EPA most recently approved substantive revisions to the Alaska minor NSR program on September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56268), and minor clarifications on May 19, 2014 (81 FR 31511). In addition, we note that Alaska's SIP contains rules that regulate industrial sources of pollutants, including incinerator emission standards and emission limits for specific industrial processes and fuel burning equipment. Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    In this action, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Alaska provisions with respect to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. The EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance and the EPA is addressing such state regulations in a separate action. See “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction: Final Rule.” (June 12, 2015, 80 FR 33840) (SSM SIP Call). The EPA determined that certain SIP provisions in 36 states (applicable in 45 statewide and local jurisdictions), including Alaska, were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and thus issued a SIP call for each of those 36 states. The SIP call also embodies the EPA's updated SSM Policy as it applies to SIP provisions and provides guidance to states for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP provisions applicable to excess emissions during SSM events. Alaska submitted a SIP revision on January 9, 2017 in response to the SIP Call. We intend to address the January 9, 2017 submission in a separate action.

    In addition, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Alaska rules with respect to director's discretion or variance provisions. Some states may have such provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance and the EPA is addressing such regulations in a separate action via the SSM SIP Call (June 12, 2015, 80 FR 33840). We encourage any state having a director's discretion or variance provision that is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

    110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to the EPA upon request.

    State submission: The submission references Alaska statutory and regulatory authority to conduct ambient air monitoring investigations. AS 46.03.020 Powers of the department paragraph (5) provides authority to undertake studies, inquiries, surveys, or analyses essential to the accomplishment of the purposes of ADEC. AS 46.14.180 Monitoring provides authority to require sources to monitor emissions and ambient air quality to demonstrate compliance with applicable permit program requirements. 18 AAC 50.201 Ambient Air Quality Investigation provides authority to require a source to do emissions testing, reduce emissions, and apply controls to sources.

    The submission references ADEC's revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air Monitoring and Quality Assurance Program as amended through February 23, 2010. This document is adopted by reference into the State Air Quality Control Plan at 18 AAC 50.030(4). ADEC states that the manual includes the appropriate, federally-referenced ambient air quality monitoring and analysis procedures and data quality objectives. Validated State & Local Air Monitoring Stations, and Special Purpose Monitoring ambient air quality monitoring data are verified, and then electronically reported to the EPA through the Air Quality System on a quarterly basis.

    The submission also references 18 AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference which include the most current, federal reference and interpretation methods for Pb. These methods are used by ADEC in ambient air quality monitoring program to determine compliance with the standards.

    EPA analysis: A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by Alaska on January 18, 1980 and approved by the EPA on April 15, 1981 (40 CFR 52.70). This monitoring plan has been updated and revised over time. The EPA most recently reviewed Alaska's 2015 monitoring plan 4 on October 28, 2015.5 Alaska's 2015 plan references the source-oriented ambient air monitoring for Pb that was conducted at the Red Dog Mine, located in a remote part of the Northwest Arctic Borough. In 2016, the state requested a waiver from source-oriented monitoring requirements at the mine based on dispersion modeling, the results of which demonstrated that the source will not contribute to a maximum lead concentration in ambient air in excess of 50 percent of the Pb NAAQS. The EPA granted the waiver request on August 11, 2016.6

    4 2015 Alaska Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan.

    5 2015 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan Approval Letter, October 28, 2015.

    6 Red Dog Mine Monitoring Waiver Letter, August 11, 2016.

    We find that the Alaska Pb monitoring network meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and we are therefore proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We note that the waiver must be renewed once every five years as part of the network assessment required under 40 CFR 58.10(d). If site conditions have changed such that the previous modeling is no longer appropriate, ADEC must update the modeling based on current conditions. See 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, Section 4.5(a)(ii).

    110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.

    State submission: The submission references ADEC's statutory authority to regulate stationary sources via an air permitting program established in AS 46.14 “Air Quality Control,” Article 01 “General Regulations and Classifications” and Article 02 “Emission Control Permit Program.” The submission states that ADEC's PSD/NSR programs were approved by the EPA on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). The submission references the following regulations:

    • 18 AAC 50.045: Prohibitions.

    • 18 AAC 50.302: Construction Permits.

    • 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits.

    • 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions.

    • 18 AAC 50.508: Minor Permits Requested by the Owner or Operator.

    • 18 AAC 50.540: Minor Permit: Application.

    • 18 AAC 50.542: Minor Permit Review and Issuance.

    • 18 AAC 50.542(c): Screening Ambient Air Quality Analysis.

    The submission states that a violation of the prohibitions in the regulations above, or any permit condition, can result in civil actions (AS 46.03.760 Civil action for pollution; damages), administrative penalties (AS 46.03.761 Administrative penalties), or criminal penalties (AS 46.03.790 Criminal penalties). In addition, the submission refers to regulations pertaining to compliance orders and enforcement proceedings found at 18 AAC Chapter 95 Administrative Enforcement. AS 46.03.820 Emergency Powers provides ADEC with emergency order authority where there is an imminent and present danger to health or welfare.

    EPA analysis: With respect to the requirement to have a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures, we are proposing to find that Alaska statute provides ADEC authority to enforce air quality regulations, permits, and orders promulgated pursuant to AS 46.03 and AS 46.14. ADEC staffs and maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements. ADEC has emergency order authority when there is an imminent or present danger to health or welfare or potential for irreversible or irreparable damage to natural resources or the environment. Enforcement cases may be referred to the State Department of Law. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, states are required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As explained above, we are not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D, title I of the CAA.

    Alaska's major NSR permitting rules in 18 AAC Chapter 50, Article 3 for attainment and unclassifiable areas, generally relies on the federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21, which are incorporated by reference into the Alaska SIP, to implement its SIP-approved PSD permitting program. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Alaska's PSD permitting program on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). The current Alaska SIP-approved PSD permitting program incorporates by reference specific regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 51.166 as of December 9, 2013. We are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates the state has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the state has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Alaska has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) with respect to PSD.

    We note that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded two of the EPA's rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the “Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),” (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321) (2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule). The court ordered the EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas. The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule addressed by the court's decision promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule in order to comply with the court's decision.

    To address the court's remand, the EPA promulgated a final rule for the “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” on August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58011). This rule sets requirements for major stationary sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which are due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as ten years following designations for some elements. Accordingly, our proposed approval of elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), with respect to the PSD requirements, does not conflict with the court's opinion.

    In addition, on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a judgment that, among other things, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) to the federal regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part of the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC); Final Rule,” (October 10, 2010, 75 FR 64864) (2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule). In its decision, the court held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a state's PSD program, were a state PSD program that contains such a provision to use that provision to issue new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of the vacated SMC would be inconsistent with the court's opinion and the requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.

    This decision also, at the EPA's request, vacated and remanded to the EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 related to Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for PM2.5. The EPA requested this vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5, because the wording of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not vacated and remains in effect. The court's decision does not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule.

    The EPA amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from PSD regulations on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73698). On May 19, 2016, we approved revisions to the Alaska SIP as being consistent with the court decision and revised EPA regulations (81 FR 31511).

    The EPA has also promulgated revisions to federal PSD requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in response to a court remand and vacatur. Specifically, on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 7 issued a decision that said the EPA may not treat GHGs as air pollutants for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs contain limits on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

    7 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).

    In response to the UARG decision, and the subsequent Amended Judgment issued by the D.C. Circuit (Amended Judgment),8 the EPA revised the federal PSD rules to allow for the rescission of PSD permits that are no longer required under these decisions, (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183), and to remove the regulatory provisions that were specifically vacated by the Amended Judgment, (August 19, 2015, 80 FR 50199) (removing 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), 52.21(b)(49)(v), 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13). In addition, the EPA proposed to revise provisions in the PSD permitting regulations applicable to GHGs to fully conform with UARG and the Amended Judgment, but those revisions have not been finalized (Oct. 3, 2016, 81 FR 68110).

    8Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-073, 10-1092, and 10-1167 (April 15, 2015).

    The EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision and the EPA's changes to federal PSD rules in response to the decision. At this juncture, the EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

    At present, the EPA has determined the Alaska SIP is sufficient to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously-approved by the EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved Alaska PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for purposes of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that the EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect our proposed approval of the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as those elements relate to a comprehensive PSD program. In this action we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as those elements relate to a comprehensive PSD program.

    Turning to the minor NSR requirement, Alaska regulates minor stationary sources of Pb through its federally-approved minor NSR permitting program. Alaska's program was originally approved into the SIP on July 5, 1983, and the state has made updates and revisions to the program throughout the years. The EPA most recently approved substantive revisions to the Alaska minor NSR program on September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56268). Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, or from interfering with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures to address regional haze) in any state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). As noted above, this action also does not address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS which we previously approved on August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45103).

    State submission: For purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the submission references the Alaska SIP-approved PSD program and the Alaska Regional Haze Plan.

    EPA analysis: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires state SIPs to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of its air quality (prong 3), and adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere with any other state's required measures to protect visibility (prong 4).

    To address whether emissions from sources in Alaska interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, the submission references the Alaska federally-approved PSD program. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Alaska's PSD program on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). The Alaska SIP incorporates by reference federal PSD requirements as of December 9, 2013. We believe that our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected by recent court vacaturs of federal PSD implementing regulations. Please see our discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to PSD (prong 3) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    To address whether emissions from sources in Alaska interfere with any other state's required measures to protect visibility, the submission references the Alaska Regional Haze SIP, which was submitted to the EPA on March 29, 2011. The Alaska Regional Haze SIP addresses visibility impacts across states within the region. On February 14, 2013, the EPA approved the Alaska Regional Haze SIP, including the requirements for best available retrofit technology (78 FR 10546).

    The EPA believes, as noted in the 2013 Guidance, that with respect to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-element, where a state's regional haze SIP has been approved as meeting all current obligations, a state may rely upon those provisions in support of its demonstration that it satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it relates to visibility. Because the Alaska Regional Haze SIP was found to meet federal requirements, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (prong 4).

    Interstate and International Transport Provisions

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.

    State submission: The submission references Alaska's federally-approved PSD program. The submission also references SIP revisions submitted by ADEC to update the Alaska PSD program.

    EPA analysis: Alaska's major NSR permitting rules in 18 AAC Chapter 50, Article 3 for attainment and unclassifiable areas, generally rely on the federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21, which are incorporated by reference into the Alaska SIP, to implement its SIP-approved PSD permitting program. As noted above, the EPA most recently approved revisions to Alaska's PSD permitting program on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). The current Alaska SIP-approved PSD permitting program incorporates by reference specific regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 51.166 as of December 9, 2013. At 18 AAC 50.306(b), Alaska's federally-approved SIP incorporates by reference the general provisions of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2) to describe the public participation procedures for PSD permits, including requiring notice to states whose lands may be affected by the emissions of sources subject to PSD. As a result, Alaska's PSD regulations provide for notice consistent with the requirements of the EPA PSD program. Alaska also has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires each state to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under CAA section 128 and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP provision.

    State submission: The submission states that ADEC maintains adequate personnel, funding, and authority to implement the SIP. The submission refers to AS 46.14.030 State Air Quality Control Plan which provides ADEC statutory authority to act for the state and adopt regulations necessary to implement the state air plan. The submission also references 18 AAC 50.030 State Air Quality Control Plan which provides regulatory authority to implement and enforce the SIP.

    With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), the submission states that Alaska's regulations on conflict of interest are found in Title 2—Administration, Chapter 50 Alaska Public Offices Commission: Conflict of Interest, Campaign Disclosure, Legislative Financial Disclosure, and Regulations of Lobbying (2 AAC 50.010—2 AAC 50.920). Regulations concerning financial disclosure are found in Title 2, Chapter 50, Article 1—Public Official Financial Disclosure. There are no state air quality boards in Alaska. The ADEC commissioner, however, as an appointed official and the head of an executive agency, is required to file a financial disclosure statement annually by March 15th of each year with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). These disclosures are publically available through APOC's Anchorage office. Alaska's Public Officials Financial Disclosure Forms and links to Alaska's financial disclosure regulations can be found at the APOC Web site: http://doa.alaska.gov/apoc/.

    With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and assurances that the state has responsibility for adequate implementation of the plan where the state has relied on local or regional government agencies, the submission states that ADEC ensures local programs have adequate resources and documents this in the appropriate SIP section. Statutory authority for establishing local air pollution control programs is found at AS 46.14.400 Local air quality control programs.

    The submission also states that ADEC provides technical assistance and regulatory oversight to the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) and other local jurisdictions to ensure that the State Air Quality Control Plan and SIP objectives are satisfactorily carried out. ADEC has a Memorandum of Understanding with the MOA and FNSB that allows them to operate air quality control programs in their respective jurisdictions. The South Central Clean Air Authority has been established to aid the MOA and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in pursuing joint efforts to control emissions and improve air quality in the air-shed common to the two jurisdictions. In addition, ADEC indicates the department works closely with local agencies on nonattainment plans.

    EPA analysis: We are proposing to find that the Alaska SIP meets the adequate personnel, funding and authority requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). Alaska receives sections 103 and 105 grant funds from the EPA and provides state matching funds necessary to carry out SIP requirements. For purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we previously approved Alaska's conflict of interest disclosure and ethics regulations as meeting the requirements of CAA section 128 on October 22, 2012 (77 FR 64427). Finally, the EPA is proposing to find that Alaska has provided necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP with regards to the 2008 Pb NAAQS as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.

    State submission: The submission states that ADEC has general statutory authority to regulate stationary sources via an air permitting program which includes permit reporting requirements, completeness determinations, administrative actions, and stack source monitoring requirements. The submission states ADEC has regulatory authority to determine compliance with these statutes via information requests and ambient air quality investigations. ADEC has adopted by reference the federal reference and interpretation methods for Pb into the Alaska SIP. The submission also references the SIP-approved Alaska PSD program. Ambient air quality and meteorological data that are collected for PSD purposes by stationary sources are reported to ADEC on a quarterly and annual basis.

    The submission refers to the following statutory and regulatory provisions providing authority and requirements for source emissions monitoring, reporting, and correlation with emission limits or standards:

    • AS 46.14.140: Emission control permit program regulations.

    • AS 46.14.180: Monitoring.

    • 18 AAC 50.035: Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference.

    • 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards Adopted by Reference.

    • 18 AAC 50.200: Information Requests.

    • 18 AAC 50.201: Ambient Air Quality Investigation.

    • 18 AAC 50.220: Enforceable test methods.

    • 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits.

    • 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions.

    EPA analysis: The Alaska SIP establishes compliance requirements for sources subject to major and minor source permitting to monitor emissions, keep and report records, and collect ambient air monitoring data. 18 AAC 50.200 Information Requests provides ADEC authority to issue an information request to an owner, operator, or permittee for purposes of ascertaining compliance. 18 AAC 50.201 Ambient Air Quality Investigations provides authority to require an owner, operator, or permittee to evaluate the effect emissions from the source have on ambient air quality. In addition, 18 AAC 50.306 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits and 18 AAC 50.544 Minor Permits: Content provide for establishing permit conditions to require the permittee to install, use and maintain monitoring equipment, sample emissions, provide source test reports, monitoring data, emissions data, and information from analysis, keep records and make period reports on process operations and emissions. This information is made available to the public through public processes outlined in these SIP-approved rules.

    Additionally, states are required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories. Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.

    State submission: The submission cites AS 46.03.820 Emergency powers which provides ADEC with emergency order authority where there is an imminent or present danger to the health or welfare of the people of the state or would result in or be likely to result in irreversible or irreparable damage to the natural resources or environment. The submission also refers to 18 AAC 50.245 Air Episodes and Advisories which authorizes ADEC to declare an air alert, air warning, or air advisory to notify the public and prescribe and publicize curtailment action.

    EPA analysis: Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions which present an “imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.” The EPA finds that AS 46.03.820 Emergency Powers provides emergency order authority comparable to CAA Section 303.

    The EPA's regulations for emergency episodes are in 40 CFR part 51 subpart H. The regulations prescribe the requirements for emergency episode plans based on classification of regions in a state for a subset of the criteria pollutants. As indicated in our 2011 Guidance, we note that 40 CFR part 51 subpart H does not apply to Pb. Based on the EPA's experience to date with the Pb NAAQS and designating Pb nonattainment areas, we expect that an emergency episode associated with Pb emissions would be unlikely and, if it were to occur, would be the result of a malfunction or other emergency situation at a relatively large source of Pb. The EPA believes that AS 46.03.820 Emergency Powers provides adequate authority to address an emergency situation at a large source of Pb. Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph 110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.

    State submission: The submission refers to statutory authority to adopt regulations in order to implement the CAA and the state air quality control program at AS 46.03.020(10)(A) Powers of the Department and AS 46.14.010(a) Emission Control Regulations. The submission also refers to regulatory authority to implement provisions of the CAA at 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards. The submission affirms that ADEC regularly updates the Alaska SIP as new NAAQS are promulgated by the EPA.

    EPA analysis: As cited above, the Alaska SIP provides for revisions, and in practice, Alaska regularly submits SIP revisions to the EPA to take into account revisions to the NAAQS and other federal regulatory changes. We have approved many revisions to the Alaska SIP, most recently on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511), March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14038), September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56268), August 9, 2013 (78 FR 48611), May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27071) and January 7, 2013 (78 FR 900). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D

    EPA analysis: There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but are rather due at the time of the nonattainment area plan requirements pursuant to section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2—5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I).

    110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With Government Officials

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and federal land managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.

    State submission: The submission refers to statutory authority to consult and cooperate with officials of local governments, state and federal agencies, and non-profit groups found at AS 46.030.020 Powers of the department paragraphs (3) and (8). The submission states that municipalities and local air quality districts seeking approval for a local air quality control programs shall enter into a cooperative agreement with ADEC according to AS 46.14.400 Local air quality control programs, paragraph (d). ADEC can adopt new CAA regulations only after a public hearing, per AS 46.14.010 Emission control regulations, paragraph (a). In addition, the submission states that public notice and public hearing regulations for SIP submissions and air quality discharge permits are found at 18 AAC 15.050 and 18 AAC 15.060. Finally, the submission also references the SIP-approved Alaska PSD program and Regional Haze SIP.

    EPA analysis: The EPA finds that the Alaska SIP, including the Alaska rules for major source permitting, contains provisions for consulting with government officials as specified in CAA section 121. Alaska's PSD program provides opportunity and procedures for public comment and notice to appropriate federal, state and local agencies. We most recently approved revisions to the Alaska PSD program on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). In addition, we most recently approved the Alaska rules that define transportation conformity consultation on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53735). On February 14, 2013, we approved the Alaska Regional Haze SIP (78 FR 10546).

    ADEC routinely coordinates with local governments, states, federal land managers and other stakeholders on air quality issues including transportation conformity and regional haze, and provides notice to appropriate agencies related to permitting actions. Alaska participates in regional planning processes including the Western Regional Air Partnership which is a voluntary partnership of states, tribes, federal land managers, local air agencies and the EPA formed to evaluate current and evolving regional air quality issues in the West. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. ADEC is a partner in the EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs, which provide air quality information to the public for five major air pollutants regulated by the CAA: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Alaska also provides real-time air monitoring information to the public on the ADEC air quality Web site at http://dec.alaska.gov/ in addition to air advisory information. During the summer months, the Fairbanks North Star Borough prepares a weekly Air Quality forecast for the Fairbanks area. The forecast is found at http://co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/.

    While we note that Pb is not part of the EPA air quality alert programs, the Alaska SIP provides general authority at 18 AAC 50.245 Air Episodes and Advisories for notifying the public when air quality is degrading. We are therefore proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Alaska's PSD program on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). We are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for PSD for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We note that our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to PSD is not affected by recent court vacaturs of the EPA's PSD implementing regulations. Please see our discussion regarding section 110(a)(2)(C).

    With respect to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we find that there is no new applicable requirement related to visibility triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.

    State submission: The submission states that air quality modeling is regulated under 18 AAC 50.215(b) Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods. Estimates of ambient concentrations and visibility impairment must be based on applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models are adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by Reference. Baseline dates and maximum allowable increases are found in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively, at 18 AAC 50.020 Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases.

    EPA analysis: On May 19, 2016, we approved revisions to 18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods and 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by Reference (81 FR 31511). 18 AAC 50.040, at paragraph (f), incorporates by reference the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W Guidelines on Air Quality Models revised as of July 1, 2013. In addition, as an example of Alaska's modeling capacity, Alaska submitted the Fairbanks Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan to the EPA on June 21, 2004, supported by air quality modeling. The maintenance plan and supporting modeling was approved by the EPA as a SIP revision on July 27, 2004 (69 FR 44605). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit.

    State submission: The submission states that ADEC's statutory authority to assess and collect permit fees is established in AS 46.14.240 Permit Administration Fees and AS 46.14.250 Emission Fees. The permit fees for stationary sources are assessed and collected by the Air Permits Program according to 18 AAC 50, Article 4. ADEC is required to evaluate emission fee rates at least every four years and provide a written evaluation of the findings (AS 46.14.250(g); 18 AAC 50.410).

    EPA analysis: The EPA fully approved Alaska's title V program on July 26, 2001 (66 FR 38940) with an effective data of September 24, 2001. While Alaska's operating permit program is not formally approved into the SIP, it is a legal mechanism the state can use to ensure that ADEC has sufficient resources to support the air program, consistent with the requirements of the SIP. Before the EPA can grant full approval, a state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. The Alaska title V program included a demonstration the state will collect a fee from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i).

    In addition, Alaska's SIP requires fees for purposes of new source permitting. See 18 AAC 50.306(d)(2), 18 AAC 50.311(d)(2), 18 AAC 50.544(a)(2), and 18 AAC 50.400. Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that Alaska has satisfied the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

    State submission: The submission states ADEC has authority to consult and cooperate with officials and representatives of any organization in the state; and persons, organization, and groups, public and private using, served by, interested in, or concerned with the environment of the state. The submission refers to AS 46.030.020 Powers of the department, paragraphs (3) and (8), which provide authority to ADEC to consult and cooperate with affected state and local entities. In addition, AS 46.14.400 Local air quality control programs, paragraph (d), provides authority for local air quality control programs and requires cooperative agreements between ADEC and local air quality control programs that specify the respective duties, funding, enforcement responsibilities, and procedures.

    EPA analysis: The EPA finds that the Alaska provisions cited above provide for local and regional authorities to participate and consult in the SIP development process. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    V. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 (Public Law 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 it does not involve technical standards; and

    • Does not provide the 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 the 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 10, 2017. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10938 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0217; FRL-9962-29-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Air Emissions Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan to address requirements for the reporting of air emissions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors. EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted on June 14, 2010, by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and portions of subsequent SIP revisions submitted on August 8, 2014 and November 4, 2016, which further revise the regulations concerning the reporting of emissions. This proposed action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0217 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, 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:

    D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision 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 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 on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: April 27, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10918 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0395; FRL-9963-00-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Cleveland Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 29, 2016, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the partial Cuyahoga County nonattainment area (known as and referred to as the Cleveland area) to attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for lead. EPA determined that the Cleveland area meets the requirements for redesignation and is also proposing to approve several additional related actions. EPA is proposing to approve, as revisions to the Ohio state implementation plan (SIP), reasonably available control measure/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT) requirements, emissions inventory requirements, and the state's plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS through 2030 for the area. EPA is taking these actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0395 at http://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, 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is proposing to approve 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 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: May 11, 2017. Cheryl L. Newton, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10965 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0044; FRL-9962-71-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Redesignation of the Belding Area in Ionia County to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State of Michigan's request to revise the designation of the Belding nonattainment area to attainment of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. EPA is also proposing to approve the related elements of emissions inventories and a maintenance plan. EPA is proposing to approve reasonably available control measure/reasonably available control technology measures and a comprehensive emissions inventory as meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. EPA proposes taking these actions in accordance with the CAA and EPA's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0044 at http://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, 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [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 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: May 4, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10926 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 261 [EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0153; FRL-9962-44-Region 6] Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Beaumont Refinery (ExxonMobil) to exclude (or delist) the secondary impoundment basin solids in Beaumont, Texas from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 3.0.47 in the evaluation of the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.

    DATES:

    We will accept comments until June 30, 2017. We will stamp comments received after the close of the comment period as late. These late comments may or may not be considered in formulating a final decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by June 15, 2017. The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites refer to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated).

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0153, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information regarding the ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214-665-7430 or by email at [email protected]

    Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by June 15, 2017. The request must contain the information described in § 260.20(d).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ExxonMobil submitted a petition under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268, and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.

    EPA bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. This decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

    If finalized, EPA would conclude that ExxonMobil's petitioned waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. EPA would also conclude that ExxonMobil's process minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.

    Table of Contents

    The information in this section is organized as follows:

    I. Overview Information A. What action is EPA proposing? B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting? C. How will ExxonMobil manage the waste, if it is delisted? D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized? E. How would this action affect states? II. Background A. What is the history of the delisting program? B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a petitioner? C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a delisting petition? III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data A. What waste did ExxonMobil petition EPA to delist? B. Who is ExxonMobil and what process does it use to generate the petitioned waste? C. How did ExxonMobil sample and analyze the data in this petition? D. What were the results of ExxonMobil's analysis? E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste? F. What did EPA conclude about ExxonMobil's analysis? G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation? H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition? IV. Next Steps A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply? B. What happens if ExxonMobil violates the terms and conditions? V. Public Comments A. How can I as an interested party submit comments? B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed exclusion? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Overview Information A. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve the delisting petition submitted by ExxonMobil to have the secondary impoundment basin (SIB) solids excluded, or delisted from the definition of a hazardous waste. The SIB solids are listed as F037 (primary oil/water/solids separation sludge); and F038 (secondary oil/water/solids separation sludge).

    B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?

    ExxonMobil's petition requests an exclusion from the F037 and F038 waste listings pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. ExxonMobil does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. ExxonMobil also believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)-(4) (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). In making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in §§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from ExxonMobil is based on the information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data from the Beaumont, Texas facility.

    C. How will ExxonMobil manage the waste if it is delisted?

    If the SIB solids are delisted, contingent upon approval of the delisting petition, storage containers with SIB solids will be transported to an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.) for disposal.

    D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?

    RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide a notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) on this proposal.

    RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 6930(b)(1), allows rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated facility does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.

    EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

    E. How would this action affect the states?

    Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.

    EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.6929. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, EPA urges petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes under the state law.

    EPA has also authorized some states (for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make state delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized states unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program. If ExxonMobil transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, ExxonMobil must obtain delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-hazardous in the state.

    II. Background A. What is the history of the delisting program?

    EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.

    EPA lists these wastes as hazardous because: (1) The wastes typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), (2) the wastes meet the criteria for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (b) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment, storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed wastes and which therefore become hazardous under § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i), known as the “mixture” or “derived-from” rules, respectively.

    Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described in these regulations or resulting from the operation of the mixture or derived-from rules generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an individual facility may not be hazardous.

    For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating facility as a hazardous waste.

    B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a petitioner?

    A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. The facility petitions EPA because it does not consider the wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.

    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for the listed waste.

    In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the listed waste.)

    Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even if EPA has “delisted” the waste.

    C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a delisting petition?

    Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which EPA listed the waste, if a reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.

    EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or disposing of listed hazardous waste. See § 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules, respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).

    III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data A. What waste did ExxonMobil petition EPA to Delist?

    In August 2016, ExxonMobil petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, SIB solids (F037, F038) generated from its facility located in Beaumont, Texas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its petition, ExxonMobil requested that EPA grant a one-time exclusion for 400,000 cubic yards of as generated wet SIB solids.

    B. Who is ExxonMobil and what process does it use to generate the petitioned waste?

    ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery processes crude oil in the production of a number of petroleum products, including fuels and chemical feedstocks. The petitioned waste, SIB solids, originated from both historical and current operation of the wastewater treatment system at the refinery. To the extent possible, hydrocarbons present in refinery wastewaters have been recovered. However, historically more hydrocarbons passed through the “oil recovery system” and flowed into the SIB. Hydrocarbons in the wastewater can result from various sources (e.g. crude oil). Over time, more of the oily streams were routed to storage tanks from collection system piping and/or smaller tanks for interception and recovery instead of into the SIB. Recovered oil from the oil recovery system is stored in tanks prior to being reintroduced into the refining process. Historically, these oily flows occurred in conjunction with facility operations, were relatively routine in nature, and not directly associated with precipitation. As such, they were classified by EPA as “dry weather” flows. By contrast, wastewater directly associated with precipitation (i.e. storm water) is referred to as “wet weather” flows. The EPA listing criteria for F037 generally encompasses primary solids associated with dry-weather, oily flows, and the EPA listing criteria for F038 generally encompasses secondary solids associated with dry-weather, oily flows. During the early 1990s, ExxonMobil implemented a program to identify and mitigate dry weather flows to the SIB, and those flows have since been eliminated. Since the SIB historically received dry-weather, oily flows as specified in the November 2, 1990 Federal Register rule publication, the lower stratum of solids within the pond are believed to be classified as F037 when generated. Dry-weather, oily flows have since been eliminated from reaching the SIB. However, creating a definitive “bright line” in the solid stratum is not practical, so ExxonMobil assumes that solids removed from the SIB bear the F037 (primary oil/water/solids separation sludge) listing when generated. Although it is not believed that the F038 (secondary oil/water/solids separation sludge) listing would apply, ExxonMobil has conservatively elected to also include this listing as part of the delisting effort.

    C. How did ExxonMobil sample and analyze the data in this petition?

    To support its petition, ExxonMobil submitted:

    (1) Historical information on waste generation and management practices; and

    (2) Analytical results from thirty-nine samples for total and TCLP concentrations of compounds of concern (COC)s;

    D. What were the results of ExxonMobil's analysis?

    EPA believes that the descriptions of the ExxonMobil analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant ExxonMobil's petition for an exclusion of the SIB solids. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show the SIB solids are non-hazardous. Analytical data for the SIB solids samples were used in the DRAS to develop delisting levels. The data summaries for COCs are presented in Table I. EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by ExxonMobil and has determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the SIB solids. In addition, the data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in ExxonMobil's waste are presently below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-making. EPA believes that ExxonMobil has successfully demonstrated that the SIB solids are non-hazardous.

    Table 1—Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration Secondary Impoundment Basin (SIB) Solids ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery, Beaumont, Texas Constituent Maximum total
  • concentration (mg/kg)
  • Maximum TCLP
  • concentration (mg/L)
  • Maximum
  • TCLP delisting level
  • (mg/L)
  • Antimony 4.84 0.023 .109 Arsenic 33.6 0.077 .424 Barium 455 1.47 36 Beryllium 1.38 <0.002 2.0 Cadmium 2.05 <0.002 0.09 Chromium 697 0.205 2.27 Cobalt 19.4 0.0371 0.214 Lead 400 0.656 0.702 Mercury 3.61 0.000049 0.068 Nickel 68.2 0.152 13.5 Selenium 28.7 0.0177 0.890 Silver 1.23 0.002 5.0 Vanadium 90.7 0.0815 3.77 Zinc 2470 5.43 197 2,4 Dimethylphenol 0.97 0.0018 11.3 2-Methylphenol 0<0.71 <.000033 28.9 3-Methylphenol <0.64 0.002 28.9 4-Methylphenol <0.64 0.00047 2.89 Acenaphthene 1.7 0.00091 10.6 Anthracene 2.9 0.00019 25.9 Benz(a)anthracene 7.2 0.000034 0.07 Benz(a)pyrene 5 <0.00003 26.3 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 34 0.0002 106,000 Chrysene 19 0.000048 7.01 Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.66 0.0013 24.6 Fluoranthene 2.1 0.000078 2.46 Fluorene 4.9 0.0016 4.91 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.6 <0.000051 73 Naphthalene 26 0.02 0.0327 Phenol <0.71 0.00025 173 Pyrene N/A 0.00019 4.45 Benzene 1.1 <0.004 0.077 Xylenes, total 53 0.18 9.56 Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not necessarily represent the specific level found in one sample.
    E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting the waste?

    For this delisting determination, EPA used such information gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e. groundwater, surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. EPA determined that disposal in a surface impoundment is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for ExxonMobil's petitioned waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000) and 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of the disposal of ExxonMobil's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. A copy of this software can be found on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/dras-software.html. In assessing potential risks to groundwater, EPA used the maximum waste volumes and the maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to the DRAS program to estimate the constituent concentrations in the groundwater at a hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the disposal site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10−5 and non-cancer hazard index of 1.0), the DRAS program can back-calculate the acceptable receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point concentrations) using standard risk assessment algorithms and EPA health-based numbers. Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations and EPA's Composite Model for Underflow water Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and transport modeling factors, the DRAS further back-calculates the maximum permissible waste constituent concentrations not expected to exceed the compliance-point concentrations in groundwater.

    EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible groundwater contamination resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a surface impoundment, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable worst-case scenarios resulted in conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment.

    The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways (e.g. volatilization from the impoundment). As in the above groundwater analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the health-based data and standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms to predict maximum compliance-point concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical point of exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the maximum allowable waste constituent concentrations (or “delisting levels”).

    In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and transport model. EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit the fate and transport model evaluates.

    The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in Table I. Based on the comparison of the DRAS and TCLP Analyses results found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no constituents of concern tested are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products in ExxonMobil waste.

    F. What did EPA conclude about ExxonMobil's waste analysis?

    EPA concluded, after reviewing ExxonMobil's processes that no other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products in the waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical data provided by ExxonMobil, pursuant to § 260.22, EPA concludes that the petitioned waste do not exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. See §§ 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, respectively.

    G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?

    During the evaluation of ExxonMobil's petition, EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-groundwater routes (i.e. air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne contaminants from ExxonMobil's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no appreciable air releases are likely from ExxonMobil's waste under any likely disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents released from ExxonMobil's waste in an open landfill. The results of this worst-case analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne exposure to constituents from ExxonMobil's SIB solids.

    H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?

    The descriptions of ExxonMobil's hazardous waste process and analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in the waste are below the leachable concentrations (see Table I). EPA believes that ExxonMobil's SIB solids will not impose any threat to human health and the environment.

    Thus, EPA believes ExxonMobil should be granted an exclusion for the SIB solids. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show ExxonMobil's SIB solids are non-hazardous. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in ExxonMobil's waste are presently below the compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision and would not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. EPA believes that ExxonMobil has successfully demonstrated that the SIB solids are non-hazardous.

    EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to ExxonMobil in Beaumont, Texas, for the SIB solids described in its petition. EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the treatment activities associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of the SIB solids.

    If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate the petitioned waste under Parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of Part 270.

    IV. Next Steps A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?

    The petitioner, ExxonMobil, must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 1. The text below gives the rationale and details of those requirements.

    (1) Delisting Levels:

    This paragraph provides the levels of constituents for which ExxonMobil must test the SIB solids, below which these wastes would be considered non-hazardous. EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents specified in paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1, (the exclusion language) based on information in the petition. EPA compiled the inorganic and organic constituents list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of ExxonMobil's treatment process, previous test data provided for the waste, and the respective health-based levels used in delisting decision-making. These delisting levels correspond to the allowable levels measured in the TCLP concentrations.

    (2) Waste Holding and Handling:

    The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that ExxonMobil manages and disposes of any SIB solids that contains hazardous levels of inorganic and organic constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the SIB solids as a hazardous waste until the verification testing is performed will protect against improper handling of hazardous material. If EPA determines that the data collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for in the petition, the exclusion will not cover the petitioned waste. The exclusion is effective upon publication in the Federal Register but the disposal as non-hazardous cannot begin until the verification sampling is completed.

    (3) Verification Testing Requirements:

    ExxonMobil must complete a rigorous verification testing program on the SIB solids to assure that the solids do not exceed the maximum levels specified in paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. This verification program will occur as wastes are removed from the basin and scheduled for disposal. The volume of wastes removed from the basin may not exceed 400,000 cubic yards of as generated wet SIB solids material. Any as generated SIB solids waste in excess of 400,000 cubic yards must be disposed as hazardous waste if EPA determines that the data collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for the petition, the exclusion will not cover the generated wastes. If the data from the verification testing program demonstrate that the SIB solids meet the delisting levels, ExxonMobil may commence disposing of the solids for a period of one year. EPA will notify ExxonMobil in writing, if and when it begins and ends disposal of the SIB solids.

    (4) Data Submittals:

    To provide appropriate documentation that ExxonMobil's SIB solids meet the delisting levels, ExxonMobil must compile, summarize, and keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. It should keep all analytical data obtained through paragraph (3) of the exclusion language including quality control information for five years. Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language requires that ExxonMobil furnish these data upon request for inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Texas.

    If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 400,000 cubic yards of as generated wet SIB solids generated at the ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery after successful verification testing. EPA would require ExxonMobil to file a new delisting petition for waste generated in excess of the as generated wet 400,000 cubic yards and treat the solids as hazardous waste:

    ExxonMobil must manage waste volumes greater than as generated wet 400,000 cubic yards of the SIB solids as hazardous until EPA grants a new exclusion.

    When this exclusion becomes final, ExxonMobil's management of the wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the SIB solids from ExxonMobil will be disposed of in an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.).

    (5) Reopener:

    The purpose of paragraph (6) of the exclusion language is to require ExxonMobil to disclose new or different information related to a condition at the facility or disposal of the waste, if it is pertinent to the delisting. ExxonMobil must also use this procedure, if the waste sample in the annual testing fails to meet the levels found in paragraph (1). This provision will allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion, if a source provides new or additional information to EPA. EPA will evaluate the information on which EPA based the decision to see if it is still correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition, if presented. This provision expressly requires ExxonMobil to report differing site conditions or assumptions used in the petition, in addition to failure to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of discovery. If EPA discovers such information itself or from a third party, it can act on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions at § 268.6.

    EPA believes that it has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to reopen a delisting decision. EPA may reopen a delisting decision when it receives new information that calls into question the assumptions underlying the delisting.

    EPA believes a clear statement of its authority in delistings is merited, in light of EPA's experience. See Reynolds Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 FR 63458 where the delisted waste leached at greater concentrations in the environment than the concentrations predicted when conducting the TCLP, thus leading EPA to repeal the delisting. If an immediate threat to human health and the environment presents itself, EPA will continue to address these situations on a case-by-case basis. Where necessary, EPA will make a good cause finding to justify emergency rulemaking. See APA section 553 (b).

    (6) Notification Requirements:

    In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is requiring that ExxonMobil provide a one-time notification to any state regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being carried. ExxonMobil must provide this notification sixty (60) days before commencing this activity.

    B. What happens if ExxonMobil violates the terms and conditions?

    If ExxonMobil violates the terms and conditions established in the exclusion, EPA will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, EPA will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-case basis. EPA expects ExxonMobil to conduct the appropriate waste analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in paragraph (1) of the exclusion.

    V. Public Comments A. How can I as an interested party submit comments?

    EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to Kishor Fruitwala, Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: “EPA-R6-RCRA-2017-0153, ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery Secondary Impoundment Basin Solids delisting.” You may submit your comments electronically to Michelle Peace at [email protected]

    You should submit requests for a hearing to Kishor Fruitwala, Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.

    B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed exclusion?

    You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for additional copies. Docket materials may be available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov and you may also request the electronic files of the docket which do not appear on regulations.gov.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore, is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”, (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

    Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform”, (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from management of this material in an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.). Therefore, EPA believes that any populations in proximity of the landfills used by this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste management practices for this delisted waste.

    Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: May 2, 2017. Wren Stenger, Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.

    2. In table 1 of appendix IX to part 261 add the entry “ExxonMobil” in alphabetical order to read as follows: Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 Table 1—Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources Facility Address Waste description *         *         *         *         *         *         * ExxonMobil Beaumont, TX Secondary Impoundment Basin Solids (SIB) (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and F038) generated at a maximum rate of as generated wet 400,000 cubic yards.
  • For the exclusion to be valid, ExxonMobil must implement a verification testing program for each of the waste streams that meets the following Paragraphs:
  • (1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph.
  • Secondary Impoundment Basin Solids (SIB). Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—0.109; Arsenic—0.424; Barium-36; Beryllium—2.0 Cadmium-0.09; Chromium-2.27; Cobalt-0.214; Lead-0.702; Mercury-0.068; Nickel-13.5; Selenium-0.890; Silver-5.0; Vanadium-3.77; Zinc-197; 2,4 Dimethylphenol-11.3; 2-Methylphenol-28.9; 3-Methylphenol-28.9; 4-Methylphenol-2.89; Acenaphthene-10.6; Anthracene-25.9; Benz(a)anthracene-0.07; Benz(a)pyrene-26.3; Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate-106,000 Chrysene-7.01; Di-n-butyl phthalate-24.6; Fluoranthene-2.46; Fluorene-4.91 Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene-73; Naphthalene-0.0327; Phenol—173; Pyrene-4.45; Benzene-0.077; Xylenes, total-9.56
  • (2) Waste Holding and Handling:
  • (A) Waste classification as non-hazardous cannot begin until compliance with the limits set in paragraph (1) for the SIB solids are verified.
  • (B) If constituent levels in any sample and retest sample taken by ExxonMobil exceed any of the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) for the SIB solids, ExxonMobil must do the following:
  • (i) notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (5) and
  • (ii) manage and dispose the SIB solids as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C of RCRA.
  • (3) Testing Requirements:
  • ExxonMobil must perform analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the SIB solids as follows: (i) Collect a representative sample of the SIB solids for analysis of all constituents listed in paragraph (1) prior to disposal.
  • (ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative sample according to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW-846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW-846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the ExxonMobil SIB solids are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1).
  • (4) Data Submittals:
  • ExxonMobil must submit the information described below. If ExxonMobil fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph(6). ExxonMobil must:
  • (A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, 6MM-RP, Multimedia Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD-ROM or comparable electronic media.
  • (B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.
  • (C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests them for inspection.
  • (D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted:
  • “Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete.
  • As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete.
  • If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company's RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company's reliance on the void exclusion.”
  • (5) Reopener
  • (A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste ExxonMobil possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to underflow water data or ground water monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
  • (B) If either the verification testing (and retest, if applicable) of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, ExxonMobil must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
  • (C) If ExxonMobil fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires EPA action to protect human health and/or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
  • (D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information requires action by EPA, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from receipt of the Division Director's notice to present such information.
  • (E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (6)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA actions that are necessary to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director's determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise.
  • (6) Notification Requirements:
  • ExxonMobil must do the following before transporting the delisted waste. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.
  • (A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which or through which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities.
  • (B) For onsite disposal, a notice should be submitted to the State to notify the State that disposal of the delisted materials has begun.
  • (C) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste into a different disposal facility.
  • (D) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting exclusion and a possible revocation of the decision.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-11231 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 103 Wednesday, May 31, 2017 Notices ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Notice of Public Meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States AGENCY:

    Administrative Conference of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States will hold a meeting to consider two proposed recommendations and to conduct other business. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Friday, June 16, 2017, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Constitution Center, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel (Designated Federal Officer), Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2088; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to federal agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The membership of the Conference, when meeting in plenary session, constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595).

    Agenda: The Assembly will consider two proposed recommendations as described below:

    Adjudication Materials on Agency Web sites. This proposed recommendation provides guidance regarding the online dissemination of administrative adjudication materials. It offers best practices and factors for agencies to consider as they seek to increase the accessibility of adjudication materials on their Web sites and maintain comprehensive, representative online collections of adjudication materials, consistent with the transparency objectives and privacy considerations of the Freedom of Information Act and other relevant laws and directives.

    Negotiated Rulemaking. This proposed recommendation offers best practices to agencies for choosing the most appropriate of several methods—among them negotiated rulemaking—to engage the public in agency rulemakings. It also offers best practices to agencies that choose negotiated rulemaking on how to structure their processes to enhance the probability of success.

    Additional information about the proposed recommendations and the order of the agenda, as well as other materials related to the meeting, can be found at the 67th Plenary Session page on the Conference's Web site: https://www.acus.gov/meetings-and-events/plenary-meeting/67th-plenary-session.

    Public Participation: The Conference welcomes the attendance of the public at the meeting, subject to space limitations, and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities or special needs. Members of the public who wish to attend in person are asked to RSVP online at the 67th Plenary Session Web page shown above, no later than two days before the meeting, in order to facilitate entry. Members of the public who attend the meeting may be permitted to speak only with the consent of the Chairman and the unanimous approval of the members of the Assembly. If you need special accommodations due to disability, please inform the Designated Federal Officer noted above at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. The public may also view the meeting through a live webcast, which will be available at: https://livestream.com/ACUS/67thPlenary.

    Written Comments: Persons who wish to comment on any of the proposed recommendations may do so by submitting a written statement either online by clicking “Submit a Comment” on the 67th Plenary Session Web page shown above or by mail addressed to: June 2017 Plenary Session Comments, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Written submissions must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Monday, June 12, to assure consideration by the Assembly.

    Dated: May 24, 2017. David M. Pritzker, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11137 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6110-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Advocacy and Outreach Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers (ACBFR) Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Solicitation for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture is soliciting nominations for membership for the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers (the “Committee”).

    Interested persons may submit applications and nomination packages which can be downloaded at: https://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/ad-755.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to nominations received on or before June 15, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nomination packages may be sent by postal mail or commercial delivery to: Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 520-A, Washington, DC 20250-0601 or faxed to (202) 720-7704.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 520-A, Washington, DC 20250-0601; Telephone (202) 720-6350; Fax (202) 720-7704; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters broadly affecting new farmers and ranchers including strategies, policies, and programs that will enhance opportunities and create new farming and ranching operations. The Committee will consider Department goals and objectives necessary to implement prior recommendations. The Committee will develop and recommend an overall framework and strategies to encompass principles that leverage and maximize existing programs, and create and test new program opportunities.

    On March 7, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (FR DOC# 2017-04392, Page 12782) a Notice of Solicitation for Membership. Applications were required to be received on or before March 31, 2017. We are re-issuing this announcement to extend the submission period to June 15, 2017. Prior applicants are not required to reapply.

    In this notice, we are soliciting nominations from interested organizations and individuals from among ranching and farming producers (industry), related government, State, and Tribal agricultural agencies, academic institutions, commercial banking entities, trade associations, and related nonprofit enterprises. An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's background and experience. The membership term shall not exceed 2 years from the date of appointment. The Secretary may also appoint others as deemed necessary and appropriate to fulfill the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers charter. An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's background and experience. Nomination forms are available on the Internet at https://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/ad-755 or may be obtained from Mrs. Kenya Nicholas at the email address or telephone number noted above.

    The Secretary will fill at least six vacancies from among those organizations and individuals solicited, in order to obtain the broadest possible representation on the Committee. Equal opportunity practices, in line with the USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

    Signed in Washington, DC, May 2, 2017. Christian Obineme, Associate Director, Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11214 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 24, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by June 30, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service

    Title: Swine Health Protection.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0065.

    Summary of Collection: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) of 2002 is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. The law gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The AHPA is contained in Title X, Subtitle E, Sections 10401-18 of P.O. 107-171, May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Veterinary Services, a program with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), is responsible for administering regulations intended to prevent the dissemination of animal diseases within the United States. Garbage is one of the primary media through which numerous infections or communicable diseases of swine are transmitted. Because of the serious threat to the U.S. swine industry, Congress passed Public Law 96-468 “Swine Health Protection Act” on October 17, 1980. This law requires USDA to ensure that all garbage is treated prior to its being fed to swine that are intended for interstate or foreign commerce or that substantially affect such commerce. The Act and the regulations will allow only operators of garbage treatment facilities, which meet certain specification to utilize garbage for swine feeding. APHIS will use various forms to collect information.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS collects information from persons desiring to obtain a permit (license) to operate a facility to treat garbage. Prior to issuance of a license, an inspection will be made of the facility by an authorized representative to determine if it meets all requirements of the regulations. Periodic inspections will be made to determine if licenses are meeting the standards for operation of their approved facilities. Upon receipt of the information from the Animal Health Officials, the information is used by Federal or State animal health personnel to determine whether the waste collector is feeding garbage to swine, whether it is being treated, and whether the feeder is licensed or needs to be licensed.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 2,110.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,614,541.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Live Swine, Pork, and Pork Products from Certain Regions Free of CSF in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0230.

    Summary of Collection: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) of 2002 is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. The law gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The regulations under which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducts disease prevention activities are contained in Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Part 94. These regulations place certain restrictions on the importation of swine, pork, and pork products into the United States.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information to ensure regulatory compliance for mitigation of classical swine fever (CSF) from imports of swine, pork, and pork products into the United States. One requirement is the completion of a certificate issued by a salaried veterinary officer of the Governments of Mexico, Chile, or Brazil that must accompany swine, pork, and pork products from their respective regions. Other requirements are a compliance agreement that is required by the operators of the processing establishment located in a non-CSF free region that processes pork products from CSF free regions, and a cooperative service agreement that is required by the processing establishment located in a non-CSF free region that produces pork products from a CSF free region. Either the CSF free region, or a party on its behalf, must enter into a cooperative service agreement with APHIS to pay all expenses incurred by APHIS for the initial evaluation of the processing establishment and periodically thereafter. If the information was not collected, APHIS would be unable to establish an effective defense against the entry and spread of CSF from Mexican, Chilean, and Brazilian swine, pork, and pork product imports. This would cause serious health consequences from U.S. swine and economic consequences for the U.S. pork industry.

    Description of Respondents: Businesses and Federal Animal Health Officials of the Governments of Mexico, Brazil, and Chile.

    Number of Respondents: 11.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 3,009.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Clementines, Mandarins, and Tangerines from Chile.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0242.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States. The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-58) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world, to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests, including fruit flies that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) fruits and vegetables regulations allow the importation, under certain conditions, of clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile into the United States.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS requires that some plants or plant products are accompanied by a phytosanitary inspection certificate that is completed by plant health officials in the originating or transiting country. APHIS will use the information on this certificate to determine the pest condition of the shipment at the time of inspection in the foreign country. This information is used as a guide to the intensity of the inspection that APHIS must conduct when the shipment arrives. Without the information, all shipments would need to be inspected very thoroughly, thereby requiring considerable more time, this would slow the clearance of international shipments.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 40.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 216.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Beef and Ovine Meat from Uruguay and Beef from Argentina and Brazil.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0372.

    Summary of Collection: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301), is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. The law gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The agency charged with carrying out this disease prevention mission is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and enhancing APHIS' ability to compete globally in animal and animal product trade. APHIS import regulations in sections 94.1 and 94.22 place certain restrictions on the importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay into the United States. Section 94.29 places certain restrictions on the importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from certain regions in Argentina and Brazil into the United States to prevent the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease. Under these regulations, APHIS must collect information, prepared by an authorized certified official of the Government of Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil.certifying that specific conditions for importation have been met.

    Need and Use of the Information: Imported beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and imported beef from northern Argentina and imported beef from the specific regions in Brazil must be accompanied by a foreign meat inspection certificate that is completed and signed by an authorized veterinary official of the Government of Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil. Without the information, APHIS would be unable to establish an effective defense against the entry and spread of foot-and-mouth disease and other animal diseases from Uruguay beef and ovine product imports as well as imports of beef and beef products from Argentina and Brazil.

    Description of Respondents: Federal Government; Business or Other for Profit.

    Number of Respondents: 18.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 14,802.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Jackfruit, Pineapple, and Starfruit from Malaysia into the Continental United States.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0408.

    Summary of Collection: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world as provided in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-76). APHIS regulations allow, under certain conditions, the importation into the United States of commercial consignments of jackfruit, pineapple, and starfruit from Malaysia.

    Need and Use of the Information: The condition for the importation of fruit from Malaysia include requirements for: (1) Irradiation treatment for insect pests, (2) inspection, and (3) importation of commercial consignments. The fruit will also be required to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the National Plant Protection Organization of Malaysia with a commodity specific additional declaration confirming that the fruit has been produced in accordance with the requirements.

    APHIS uses the collected information to verify that jackfruit, pineapple, and starfruit from Malaysia are grown in production areas that are registered and monitored by the NPPO of Malaysia and to verify that consignments have been treated with irradiation.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 86.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 170.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11108 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 25, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by June 30, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food Safety and Inspection Service

    Title: In-Home Food Safety Behaviors and Consumer Education: Annual Observational Study

    OMB Control Number: 0583—New.

    Summary of Collection: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53) as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 453, et seq., 601 et. seq.) FSIS protects the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are wholesome; not adulterated; and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. USDA FSIS' Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Education (OPACE) ensures that all segments of the farm-to-table chain receive valuable food safety information. The consumer education programs developed by OPACE's Food Safety Education Staff inform the public on how to safely handle, prepare, and store meat, poultry, and egg products to minimize incidence or foodborne illness. To inform the development of food safety communication products and to evaluate public health education and communication activities, FSIS is requesting approval for a new information collection to conduct observational studies using an experimental design.

    Need and Use of the Information: The observational studies will help FSIS assess adherence to the four recommended food safety behaviors of clean, separate, cook, and chill; determine whether food safety messaging focused on those behaviors affects consumer food safety handing behaviors; and determine whether consumers introduce cross-contamination during food preparation. The results of this research will be used to enhance messaging and accompanying materials to improve food safety behaviors of consumers.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 2,499.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,950.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11158 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Florida National Forests Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Florida National Forests Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Tallahassee, Florida. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/florida.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 29, 2017, at 3:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Forest Supervisor's Office, 325 John Knox Road, Tallahassee, Florida. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Denise Rains, RAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 850-523-8568 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Introduce new members and review the purpose of the RAC, and

    2. To review and recommend project proposals for Title II Funds.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 1, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Denise Rains, DFO, Forest Supervisor's Office, 325 John Knox Road, Suite F-100, Tallahassee, Florida 32303; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 850-523-8505.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Robert M. Harper, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest system.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11155 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Media Outlets for Publication of Legal and Action Notices in the Southern Region AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists all newspapers that will be used by the Ranger Districts, Grasslands, Forests and the Regional Office of the Southern Region to publish notices required under agency regulations. The intended effect of this action is to inform members of the public which newspapers will be used by the Forest Service to publish legal notices regarding proposed actions, notices of decisions and notices indicating opportunities to file objections.

    DATES:

    Use of these newspapers for purposes of publishing legal notice of decisions and notices of the opportunity to object shall begin the first day after the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Kelardy, Administrative Review Coordinator, Southern Region, Planning, 1720 Peachtree Road NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Phone: 404-347-2719.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Responsible Officials in the Southern Region will give notice of the opportunity to object to a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project under 36 CFR part 218, or developing, amending or revising land management plans under 36 CFR 219 in the following newspapers which are listed by Forest Service administrative unit. The timeframe for filing a comment, appeal or an objection shall be based on the date of publication of the notice of the proposed action in the newspaper of record for projects subject to 36 CFR 218 or 36 CFR 219. Where more than one newspaper is listed for any unit, the first newspaper listed is the newspaper of record that will be utilized for publishing the legal notice of decisions and calculating timeframes. Secondary newspapers listed for a particular unit are those newspapers the Deciding Officer/Responsible Official expects to use for purposes of providing additional notice. The following newspapers will be used to provide notice:

    Southern Region Regional Forester Decisions

    Affecting National Forest System lands in more than one administrative unit of the 15 in the Southern Region, Atlanta Journal—Constitution, published daily in Atlanta, GA.

    Affecting National Forest System lands in only one administrative unit or only one Ranger District will appear in the newspaper of record elected by the National Forest, National Grassland, National Recreation Area, or Ranger District as listed below.

    National Forests in Alabama, Alabama Forest Supervisor Decisions

    Affecting National Forest System lands in more than one Ranger District of the 6 in the National Forests in Alabama, Montgomery Advertiser, published daily in Montgomery, AL. Affecting National Forest System lands in only one Ranger District will appear in the newspaper of record elected by the Ranger District as listed below.

    District Ranger Decisions

    Bankhead Ranger District: Northwest Alabamian, published bi-weekly (Wednesday & Saturday) in Haleyville, AL

    Conecuh Ranger District: The Andalusia Star News, published daily (Tuesday through Saturday) in Andalusia, AL

    Oakmulgee Ranger District: The Tuscaloosa News, published daily in Tuscaloosa, AL

    Shoal Creek Ranger District: The Anniston Star, published daily in Anniston, AL

    Talladega Division: The Anniston Star, published daily in Anniston, AL

    Talladega Ranger District: The Daily Home, published daily in Talladega, AL

    Tuskegee Ranger District: Tuskegee News, published weekly (Thursday) in Tuskegee, AL

    Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, Georgia Forest Supervisor Decisions

    The Times, published daily in Gainesville, GA

    District Ranger Decisions:

    Blue Ridge Ranger District: The News Observer (newspaper of record) published weekly (Wednesday) in Blue Ridge, GA

    North Georgia News, (newspaper of record) published weekly (Wednesday) in Blairsville, GA

    Conasauga Ranger District: Daily Citizen, published daily in Dalton, GA

    Chattooga River Ranger District: The Northeast Georgian, (newspaper of record) published bi-weekly (Wednesday & Friday) in Cornelia, GA

    Clayton Tribune, (newspaper of record) published weekly (Thursday) in Clayton, GA

    Oconee Ranger District: Eatonton Messenger, published weekly (Thursday) in Eatonton, GA

    Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Forest Supervisor Decisions

    Knoxville News Sentinel, published daily in Knoxville, TN

    District Ranger Decisions

    Unaka Ranger District: Greeneville Sun, published daily (except Sunday) in Greeneville, TN

    Ocoee-Hiwassee Ranger District: Cleveland Daily Banner, published daily (except Saturday) in Cleveland, TN

    Tellico Ranger District: Monroe County Advocate & Democrat, published tri-weekly (Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday) in Sweetwater, TN

    Watauga Ranger District: Johnson City Press, published daily in Johnson City, TN

    Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky Forest Supervisor Decisions

    Lexington Herald-Leader, published daily in Lexington, KY

    District Ranger Decisions

    Cumberland Ranger District: The Morehead News, published bi-weekly (Tuesday and Friday) in Morehead, KY

    London Ranger District: The Sentinel- Echo, published tri-weekly (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) in London, KY

    Redbird Ranger District: Manchester Enterprise, published weekly (Thursday) in Manchester, KY

    Stearns Ranger District: McCreary County Voice, published weekly (Thursday) in Whitley City, KY

    El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico Forest Supervisor Decisions

    El Nuevo Dia, published daily in Spanish in San Juan, PR

    San Juan Daily Star, published daily in English in San Juan, PR

    National Forests in Florida, Florida Forest Supervisor Decisions

    Affecting National Forest System lands in more than one Ranger District in the National Forests in Florida or Florida National Scenic Trail land outside Ranger Districts, The Tallahassee Democrat, published daily in Tallahassee, FL. Affecting National Forest System lands in only one Ranger District will appear in the newspaper of record elected by the Ranger District as listed below.

    District Ranger Decisions

    Apalachicola Ranger District: Calhoun-Liberty Journal, published weekly (Wednesday) in Bristol, FL

    Lake George Ranger District: The Ocala Star Banner, published daily in Ocala, FL

    Osceola Ranger District: The Lake City Reporter, published daily (Monday-Saturday) in Lake City, FL

    Seminole Ranger District: The Daily Commercial, published daily in Leesburg, FL

    Wakulla Ranger District: The Tallahassee Democrat, published daily in Tallahassee, FL

    Francis Marion & Sumter National Forests, South Carolina Forest Supervisor Decisions

    The State, published daily in Columbia, SC

    District Ranger Decisions

    Andrew Pickens Ranger District: The Daily Journal, published daily (Tuesday through Saturday) in Seneca, SC

    Enoree Ranger District: Newberry Observer, published tri-weekly (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) in Newberry, SC

    Long Cane Ranger District: Index-Journal, published daily in Greenwood, SC

    Francis Marion Ranger District: Post and Courier, published daily in Charleston, SC

    George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Virginia and West Virginia Forest Supervisor Decisions

    Roanoke Times, published daily in Roanoke, VA

    District Ranger Decisions

    Clinch Ranger District: Coalfield Progress, published bi-weekly (Tuesday and Friday) in Norton, VA

    North River Ranger District: Daily News Record, published daily (except Sunday) in Harrisonburg, VA

    Glenwood-Pedlar Ranger District: Roanoke Times, published daily in Roanoke, VA

    James River Ranger District: Virginian Review, published daily (except Sunday) in Covington, VA

    Lee Ranger District: Shenandoah Valley Herald, published weekly (Wednesday) in Woodstock, VA

    Mount Rogers National Recreation Area: Bristol Herald Courier, published daily in Bristol, VA

    Eastern Divide Ranger District: Roanoke Times, published daily in Roanoke, VA

    Warm Springs Ranger District: The Recorder, published weekly (Thursday) in Monterey, VA

    Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana Forest Supervisor Decisions

    The Town Talk, published daily in Alexandria, LA

    District Ranger Decisions

    Calcasieu Ranger District: The Town Talk, (newspaper of record) published daily in Alexandria, LA

    The Leesville Daily Leader, (secondary) published daily in Leesville, LA

    Caney Ranger District: Minden Press Herald, (newspaper of record) published daily in Minden, LA

    Homer Guardian Journal, (secondary) published weekly (Wednesday) in Homer, LA

    Catahoula Ranger District: The Town Talk, published daily in Alexandria, LA

    Kisatchie Ranger District: Natchitoches Times, published daily (Tuesday thru Friday and on Sunday) in Natchitoches, LA

    Winn Ranger District: Winn Parish Enterprise, published weekly (Wednesday) in Winnfield, LA

    Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area, Kentucky and Tennessee Area Supervisor Decisions

    The Paducah Sun, published daily in Paducah, KY

    National Forests in Mississippi, Mississippi Forest Supervisor Decisions

    Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

    District Ranger Decisions

    Bienville Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

    Chickasawhay Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

    Delta Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

    De Soto Ranger District: Clarion Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

    Holly Springs Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

    Homochitto Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

    Tombigbee Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

    National Forests in North Carolina, North Carolina Forest Supervisor Decisions

    The Asheville Citizen-Times, published Wednesday thru Sunday, in Asheville, NC

    District Ranger Decisions

    Appalachian Ranger District: The Asheville Citizen-Times, published Wednesday thru Sunday, in Asheville, NC

    Cheoah Ranger District: Graham Star, published weekly (Thursday) in Robbinsville, NC

    Croatan Ranger District: The Sun Journal, published daily in New Bern, NC

    Grandfather Ranger District: McDowell News, published daily in Marion, NC

    Nantahala Ranger District: The Franklin Press, published bi-weekly (Tuesday and Friday) in Franklin, NC

    Pisgah Ranger District: The Asheville Citizen-Times, published Wednesday thru Sunday, in Asheville, NC

    Tusquitee Ranger District: Cherokee Scout, published weekly (Wednesday) in Murphy, NC

    Uwharrie Ranger District: Montgomery Herald, published weekly (Wednesday) in Troy, NC

    Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma Forest Supervisor Decisions

    Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR

    District Ranger Decisions

    Caddo-Womble Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR

    Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR

    Mena-Oden Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR

    Oklahoma Ranger District (Choctaw; Kiamichi; and Tiak): McCurtain Daily Gazette, published daily in Idabel, OK

    Poteau-Cold Springs Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR

    Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Arkansas Forest Supervisor Decisions

    The Courier, published daily (Tuesday through Sunday) in Russellville, AR

    District Ranger Decisions

    Bayou Ranger District: The Courier, published daily (Tuesday through Sunday) in Russellville, AR

    Boston Mountain Ranger District: Southwest Times Record, published daily in Fort Smith, AR

    Buffalo Ranger District: The Courier, published daily (Tuesday through Sunday) in Russellville, AR

    Magazine Ranger District: Southwest Times Record, published daily in Fort Smith, AR

    Pleasant Hill Ranger District: Johnson County Graphic, published weekly (Wednesday) in Clarksville, AR

    St. Francis National Forest: The Daily World, published bi-weekly (Tuesday and Friday) in Helena, AR

    Sylamore Ranger District: Stone County Leader, published weekly (Wednesday) in Mountain View, AR

    National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, Texas Forest Supervisor Decisions

    The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in Lufkin, TX

    District Ranger Decisions

    Angelina National Forest: The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in Lufkin, TX

    Caddo & LBJ National Grasslands: Denton Record-Chronicle, published daily in Denton, TX

    Davy Crockett National Forest: The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in Lufkin, TX

    Sabine National Forest: The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in Lufkin, TX

    Sam Houston National Forest: The Courier, published daily in Conroe, TX

    Dated: May 8, 2017. Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11153 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Prince of Wales Island Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Prince of Wales Island Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Craig, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 12, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Craig Ranger District, 504 9th Street, Craig, Alaska. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Thorne Bay Ranger District, 1312 Federal Way, Thorne Bay, Alaska. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tiana Lavoie, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-828-3205 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss potential projects for Title II Funds under the Act.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 5, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to: Matthew D. Anderson, Designated Federal Officer, Craig Ranger District, Post Office Box 500, Craig, Alaska 99921; by email to [email protected] or via facsimile to 907-826-2972.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Robert M. Harper, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Nation Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11154 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet June 13, 2017, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.

    Agenda: Public Session

    1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.

    2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of Industry and Security.

    3. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public.

    4. Export Enforcement update.

    5. Regulations update.

    6. Working group reports.

    7. Automated Export System update.

    Closed Session

    8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than June 6, 2017.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11175 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT--P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-971] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis McClure, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 15, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the final results of the 2014 countervailing duty administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China.1 In the Final Results, the Department inadvertently excluded Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd. (Nanjing Minglin) from the list of companies not selected for individual examination (non-selected companies) which were assigned a review-specific average rate of 1.06 percent.2 However, the February 9, 2016, initiation of this review included Nanjing Minglin and, therefore, we should have assigned a review-specific average rate of 1.06 percent to Nanjing Minglin for the final results.3

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014, 82 FR 22311 (May 15, 2017) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    2Id. at 22312-22313.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 6832 (February 9, 2016).

    In addition, we note that we inadvertently included Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Keri) in the list of non-selected companies assigned a review-specific average rate.4 However, we should have excluded Jiangsu Keri from the list of non-selected companies because Jiangsu Keri withdrew its request for a review and the Department rescinded its review of Jiangsu Keri in the Preliminary Results. 5 Accordingly, we now correct the Final Results of this administrative review by assigning the review-specific average rate to Nanjing Minglin and removing Jiangsu Keri from the list of non-selected respondents.

    4See Final Results at 22312.

    5See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Review, in Part, and Intent to Rescind the Review in Part; 2014, 82 FR 2319, 2320 (January 9, 2017) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    This correction to the Final Results is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: May 24, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11202 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-520-804] Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails (nails) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. We preliminarily determine that the only exporter of subject merchandise, Overseas Distribution Services Inc. (ODS), sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) in the United States and that Oman Fasteners LLC (Oman Fasteners) and Overseas International Steel Industry LLC (OISI) had no shipments during the POR.

    DATES:

    Effective May 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Annathea Cook or Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0250, and (202) 482-4031, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the Order1 is nails from the UAE. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.2

    1See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27421 (May 10, 2012) (Order).

    2See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016: Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, and information provided by Oman Fasteners and OISI, we preliminarily determine that these companies had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR. For a full discussion of this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3

    3Id.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4Id.

    Adverse Facts Available

    Because mandatory respondent ODS has withheld requested information, failed to provide such information in the manner and form required, impeded this review, and reported information that could not be verified, thus failing to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information by the Department, we preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to this respondent, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminary determine that, for the period of May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016 the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

    Producer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Overseas Distribution Services Inc. 184.41
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 20 days after the date of publication of this notice.5 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.6 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.7

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    7See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless otherwise extended.

    All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If ODS's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate an importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. If ODS's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of nails from the UAE entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for ODS will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.30 percent, the all-others rate established in the Order.9 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    9See Order.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of the antidumping duties reimburses.

    The preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments V. Use of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences VI. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-11203 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-814] Utility Scale Wind Towers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Amended Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective May 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4852.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In the amended final determination and antidumping duty order of this underlying investigation, the Department of Commerce (the Department) determined that CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd., and CS Wind Corporation are a single entity: The CS Wind Group.1 On March 16, 2017, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment, sustaining the Department's final results of redetermination concerning the less-than-fair value investigation of utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).2 On March 29, 2017, pursuant to that Court decision, effective March 26, 2017, the Department excluded from the antidumping duty order wind towers that are produced and exported by The CS Wind Group.3

    1See Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77 FR 75984 (December 26, 2012), as amended by Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 11150, 11152 (February 15, 2013) (Wind Towers Amended Final Determination)(where the Department stated, “The CS Wind Group consists of CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. and CS Wind Corporation.”).

    2See CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd., and CS Wind Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 17-26 (CIT 2017).

    3See Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Final Determination of Less Than Fair Value Investigation and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Investigation, 82 FR 15493 (March 29, 2017).

    Amendment to the Initiation

    On April 10, 2017, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wind towers from Vietnam for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.4 In the Initiation Notice, the Department inadvertently initiated an administrative review on all entries of merchandise exported by CS Wind Group. Because wind towers that are produced and exported by CS Wind Group were excluded from the antidumping duty order on wind towers from Vietnam effective March 26, 2017, the Department should only have initiated the administrative review on wind towers produced in Vietnam with respect to the CS Wind Group where CS Wind Group was (1) the producer but not the exporter, or (2) the exporter but not the producer. To correct this error in the Initiation Notice, the Department is now issuing this notice of amended initiation of the 2016-2017 antidumping duty administrative review of wind towers from Vietnam with respect to the CS Wind Group. The Department is initiating an administrative review only on entries where CS Wind Group was (1) the producer but not the exporter, or (2) the exporter but not the producer of subject merchandise. The initiation with respect to Vina Halla Heavy Industries Ltd. and UBI Tower Sole Member Company Ltd., remains unchanged.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188 (April 10, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Initiation Notice was published on April 10, 2017. Accordingly, the current deadline for withdrawal of request for this administrative review is July 10, 2017.5

    5 90 days after the publication of the Initiation Notice would place the deadline on a Sunday, July 9, 2017. The Department's practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    This amended initiation is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: May 24, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11205 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF462 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a joint public meeting of its Whiting Committee and Advisory Panel on June 14, 2017, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 14, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; Telephone: (508) 339-2200.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Committee and Advisory Panel will receive a report from the Plan Development Team on estimated impacts of Amendment 22 limited access alternatives and develop recommendations for preferred alternatives for the draft amendment. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11284 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF282 Endangered and Threatened Species; Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, are proposing to revise the Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities and Recovery Plans contained in the 1990 Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines. We propose to revise the guidelines to better prioritize limited agency resources to advance the recovery of threatened and endangered species guided by the immediacy of the species' overall extinction risk, extent of information regarding major threats, and certainty that management or protective actions can be implemented successfully. We are not proposing changes to the Listing, Reclassification, and Delisting Priorities contained in the 1990 Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines. We have found those guidelines to be sufficient in prioritizing listing actions and thus do not warrant a revision at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed revision must be received by close of business on June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0020 by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0020. Click the `Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Therese Conant, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. 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. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://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. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)) requires the Secretary to develop recovery plans for all species listed pursuant to the ESA, unless he/she finds that such a plan will not promote the recovery of the species. Section 4(h) requires the Secretary to establish a system for developing and implementing, on a priority basis, recovery plans under Section 4(f). We finalized guidance for prioritizing recovery plan development and implementation on June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24296). However, through our application of the Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities and Recovery Plans (see parts `B' and `C' June 15, 1990 55 FR 24296), we have determined that the guidelines contain vague definitions and lack sufficient detail regarding factors that should be considered when evaluating threats and recovery potential. For these reasons, we propose revisions to the Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities and Recovery Plan parts of the 1990 Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines.

    The Listing, Reclassification, and Delisting Priorities can be found in the original Federal Register notice (see part `A' June 15, 1990 55 FR 24296). The Listing, Reclassification, and Delisting Priorities remain unchanged and will be repeated in the final notice revising parts B and Part C [to maintain the guidance in a single reference].

    Proposed Revisions to Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities and Part C: Recovery Plans Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities

    The proposed changes to the Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities are:

    • The current guidelines consist of 12 species priority numbers. We propose to increase the number of species priority numbers to 24 by redefining the `magnitude of threat' and `recovery potential' criteria (see below);

    • The current guidelines consist of a first criterion—magnitude of threat. Magnitude of threat is divided by three categories: `high' meaning extinction is almost certain in the immediate future because of a rapid population decline or habitat destruction; `moderate' meaning the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or threat to its habitat; and `low' meaning a population facing a short-term, self-correcting fluctuation, or the impacts of the threats to the species' habitat are not fully known. We propose to change the magnitude of threat criterion to a demographic risk rank based on the species listing status (threatened or endangered) and species' condition for productivity, spatial distribution, diversity, abundance, or trends. The `high,' `moderate,' and `low' categories are now based on whether the species is threatened or endangered and whether it meets certain demographic risk conditions (see Table 1 in the revised guidelines below). This proposed change provides greater emphasis on the species' risk and more detail on the factors considered in assigning the risk rank;

    • The current guidelines consist of a second criterion—recovery potential. Recovery potential is based on how well biological and ecological limiting factors and threats to the species' existence are understood, and the extent of management actions needed. Recovery potential is divided into two categories: `High' meaning limiting factors and theats to the species are well understood and the needed management actions are known and have a high probability of success; and `low to moderate' meaning limiting factors or threats to the species are poorly understood or if the needed management actions are not known, are cost-prohibitive or are experimental with an uncertain probability of success. We propose to redefine the recovery potential by splitting the criterion into three components: (1) Whether the origin of major threats is known and the species response to those major threats is well understood; (2) whether the United States has jurisdiction, authority, or influence to implement management or protective actions to address major threats; and (3) the certainty that management or protective actions will be effective. Each component has a `high' or `low to moderate' category (see definitions in the revised guidelines below). This proposed change improves the guidelines by including U.S. jurisdiction or ability to influence recovery actions as a consideration in recovery potential and providing greater detail in the recovery potential definition;

    • The current guidelines include a third criterion—conflict. Conflict reflects the ESA section 4(f)(1)(A) requirement that recovery priority be given to those species that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other developmental projects or other forms of economic activity. We propose to revise the guidelines by considering all ESA-listed marine and anadromous species to be in conflict with activities related to construction or other developmental projects, or other forms of economic activity. We are unaware of any ESA-listed species under our authority that is not considered, either directly or indirectly, to be in conflict to some degree with an economic activity. We are therefore reasonably certain that any species under NMFS jurisdiction that may be listed in the future will be in similar conflict. As a result, conflict, is not considered further in the proposed guidance; and

    • The current guidelines contain three recovery task priorities defined as: Number 1—an action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to identify those actions necessary to prevent extinction; Number 2—an action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in population numbers, habitat quality, or other significant negative impacts short of extinction; and number 3—all other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. We propose to add two additional priority numbers: Number 4—actions that are not linked to downlisting and/or delisting criteria and are not needed for ESA recovery, but are needed to facilitate post-delisting monitoring, such as the development of a post-delisting monitoring plan that provides monitoring design (e.g., sampling error estimates); and number 0—actions that are not needed for ESA recovery but that would advance broader goals beyond delisting. Other actions include, for example, other legislative mandates or social, economic, and ecological values (see Table 3 in the revised guidelines below).

    Part C. Recovery Plans

    The current guidelines specify that as recovery plans are developed, specific recovery tasks are identified and prioritized according to the criteria in the part B Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities of the 1990 Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines. We have updated the entire section to reflect the new proposed prioritization scheme outlined below.

    New Proposed Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities

    The objective of these guidelines is to implement a policy to prioritize limited agency resources to advance the recovery of threatened and endangered species guided by the immediacy of the species' overall extinction risk, extent of information regarding major threats, and certainty that management and protective actions can be implemented successfully. To achieve the objective, we identified the following general principles for prioritizing recovery plan development and implementation:

    • Endangered species are a higher priority than threatened species because of the immediacy of the extinction risk;

    • Species with more severe demographic risks are a higher priority because they are at greater risk of extinction;

    • Species for which major threats are well understood are a higher priority because in such cases, effective objective, measureable recovery criteria, and site-specific management or protective actions are more likely to be identified for that species;

    • Species for which major threats are primarily under U.S. authority, or for which the United States can influence the abatement of such threats through international mechanisms (e.g., treaties, conventions, and agreements), are a higher priority because we have greater influence over the outcome; and

    • Species for which there exists possible management or protective actions to address major threats that are not novel or experimental, are technically feasible, and have been successful at removing, reducing, or mitigating effects of major threats are a higher priority, because these actions are more likely to be effective at advancing recovery.

    The process to prioritize recovery planning and implementation consists of four steps—(1) identify a category of demographic risk based on the listing status and species' condition related to productivity, spatial distribution, diversity, abundance, and trends (Step 1; Table 1); (2) identify categories for three components of recovery potential (Step 2); (3) based on results of steps 1 and 2, assign a recovery priority for recovery plan development and implementation (Step 3; Table 2); and (4) assign priority rankings to recovery actions within the recovery plan (Step 4; Table 3). This prioritization process reflects a logical sequence for recovery plan development and implementation for a species: First, identify the species' risk; second develop the recovery plan; and third, implement the priority actions and monitor and evaluate progress. As new information is obtained through the monitoring and evaluation process, recovery plans will be updated or revised as described in the NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Planning Guidance Version 1.3 (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/policies.htm).

    Step 1. Identify a Demographic Risk Category

    As a first step, we categorize the severity of an ESA-listed species' extinction risk based on the productivity, spatial distribution, diversity, and abundance of the species. We assess the species' demographic risk based on information on past threats that have contributed to the species' current status and the biological response of the species to present and future threats. The severity of a species' demographic risk, relative to all species under our jurisdiction, will inform how we prioritize resources toward recovery plan development and implementation.

    Depending on the listing status (endangered or threatened), we consider each Demographic Risk Category—productivity, spatial distribution, diversity, and abundance (Table 1; column 1) and the associated risk condition described in column 2 (Table 1; column 2). The risk condition is met when the listed entity (i.e., species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segment) is considered at risk for that category. For example, populations or subpopulations within a listed entity may vary in terms of their productivity. Some may be at or below depensation, while others are stable and healthy. In those cases, we consider which population(s) contributes most substantially to the overall viability of the listed entity. If certain populations or subpopulations are at or below depensation and are so important to the listed entity that their loss would substantially increase the listed entity's extinction risk, then the risk condition applies.

    If an endangered species meets any of the risk conditions in column 2 (Table 1), then the species is considered a HIGH demographic risk, regardless of its population trend. If an endangered species does not meet any of the risk conditions in column 2 (Table 1), then population trend information is used to categorize the demographic risk—e.g., HIGH if the population trend is declining or unknown, MODERATE or HIGH if the trend is mixed, and MODERATE if the trend is stable, or increasing. For a mixed population trend, a HIGH rating should be assigned if key populations are declining such that their continued decline would contribute substantially to the listed entity achieving the adverse risk conditions described in Table 1, otherwise a MODERATE rating should be assigned for mixed population trends.

    If a threatened species meets any of the risk conditions in column 2 (Table 1), the species is assigned a MODERATE demographic risk, regardless of its population trend. If a threatened species does not meet any of the risk conditions in column 2 (Table 1), its population trend is used to assign the demographic risk—e.g., MODERATE if the trend is declining or unknown, LOW or MODERATE if the trend is mixed, and LOW if the trend is stable, or increasing. For a mixed population trend, a MODERATE rating should be assigned if key populations are declining such that their continued decline would contribute substantially to the listed entity achieving the adverse risk conditions described in Table 1, otherwise a LOW should be assigned for mixed population trends.

    We report the species' population trends biennially to Congress pursuant to section 4(f)(3). To ensure consistency with what we report to Congress and how we set priorities for recovery planning and implementation, we will apply the following general guidelines:

    Use a minimum of 3 or more abundance estimates for key population(s) over 10 year period or, depending on taxa (e.g., sea turtles), all available data years (>3 data points) for trend estimation.

    1. Increasing: The species (includes consideration of all population units that make up the species `as-listed') shows measurably higher numbers from assessment to assessment.

    2. Stable: The species shows no measurable increase or decrease over the period of time between assessments.

    3. Decreasing: The species shows measurably lower numbers from assessment to assessment.

    4. Mixed: Mixed is a designation reserved for species with multiple populations, and species are considered mixed if there are at least 3 data points and the criteria for increasing, decreasing, and stable are not met.

    5. Unknown: The species has fewer than 3 data points over a 10 year period to estimate trends or there is uncertainty over data quality.

    Table 1—Severity of Species' Demographic Risk Demographic risk
  • category
  • Risk condition Demographic risk rank 1 Endangered Threatened
    Productivity
  • Spatial distribution
  • At or below depensation
  • Limited/fragmented Spatial Distribution; vulnerable to catastrophe
  • If any one of these risk conditions is met, the ranking is HIGH. If not, use the Trend information below to determine rank If any one of these risk conditions is met, the ranking is MODERATE. If not, use the Trend information below to determine rank.
    Diversity Low genetic and phenotypic diversity severely limiting adaptive potential Abundance One, or a few, small population(s) or subpopulations Trends Decreasing Trend/Unknown HIGH MODERATE. Mixed Trend HIGH/MODERATE MODERATE/LOW. Stable Trend MODERATE LOW. Increasing Trend MODERATE LOW. 1 For those species with recovery plans, the endangered or threatened category may be applied to a species currently not listed as such if NMFS has recommended a reclassification through a 5-year review or proposed rule.
    Step 2. Identify Categories of Recovery Potential

    In Step 2, we evaluate a species' recovery potential. We have defined recovery potential to include three components: (1) Whether the origin of major threats is known and the species response to those major threats is well understood; (2) whether the United States has jurisdiction, authority, or influence to implement management or protective actions to address major threats; and (3) the certainty that management or protective actions will be effective. Each of the three components is considered to be “High” or “Low to Moderate” based on the following definitions:

    Recovery Potential Component 1: Major Threats Well Understood

    High: Natural and man-made threats that have a major impact on the species' ability to persist have been identified, and the species' response to those threats are well understood. Data needs to fill knowledge gaps on major threats that have an impact on the species' ability to persist are minimal.

    Low to Moderate: Natural and man-made threats that have or are believed to have a major impact on the species' ability to persist may not have been identified, and/or the species' response to those major threats are not well understood. Data needs to fill knowledge gaps on major threats that have or are believed to have an impact on the species' ability to persist are substantial.

    Recovery Potential Component 2: U.S. Jurisdiction, Authority, or Influence Exists for Management or Protective Actions To Address Major Threats

    High: Management or protective actions to address major threats are primarily under U.S. authority or the United States can influence the abatement of major threats through existing international mechanisms (e.g., treaties, conventions, and agreements).1 This also applies to transnational species that spend only a portion of their life cycle in U.S. waters, but major threats can be addressed by U.S. actions during that portion of their life cycle. Where climate change impacts are a major threat and necessary actions to abate the threat are global in nature, management or protective actions under U.S. authority to address a threat that would help offset the impacts of climate change would fall into this category.

    1 Including in the U.S. territorial sea, Exclusive Economic Zone and the high seas.

    Low to Moderate: Management or protective actions to address major threats are mainly outside U.S. authority or ability to influence the abatement of major threats in other waters through existing international mechanisms (e.g., treaties, conventions, and agreements).

    Recovery Potential Component 3: Certainty That Management or Protective Actions Will Be Effective

    High: Management or protective actions do not use novel or experimental techniques, are technically feasible, and have been successful at removing, reducing or mitigating effects of major threats. Where climate change impacts are a major threat and actions to abate the threat are global, then management or protective actions under U.S. authority that effectively address a threat to help offset the impacts of climate change would fall into this category. Demonstrated success may be incremental on a small scale or with a few individuals, and can be demonstrated through surrogate species. For species with current recovery plans, high certainty of effectiveness may be measured on the basis of individual recovery actions. If there are multiple recovery actions needed to address a major threat that impedes recovery, not all need to fit the criteria of high certainty of effectiveness. If there are multiple major threats, only one major threat needs to meet the high level of certainty to be assigned this category.

    Low to Moderate: Management or protective actions, if known, may be novel or experimental, may not be technically feasible, and have less certainty of removing, reducing, or mitigating effects of major threats.

    Step 3. Assign Recovery Priority Number for Plan Development and Implementation

    In Step 3, we combine the results of the Demographic Risk Rank (Step 1) and Recovery Potential (Step 2) to assign Recovery Priority numbers, which will be used to prioritize resources for recovery plan development and implementation. We assign the greatest weight to demographic risk (Table 2; column 1), because species with more severe demographic risks are at greater risk of extinction. Although demographic risk is the most important factor to consider in assigning a Recovery Priority number, the species' recovery potential is also an important factor. For example, a species with a HIGH demographic risk and a low recovery potential for all three components (major threats understood, management actions exist under U.S. authority or influence to abate major threats, and certainty that actions will be effective) will be a lower priority than a species with a MODERATE or LOW demographic risk and a high recovery potential.

    For Recovery Potential (Table 2; Columns 2, 3, and 4), we assign the weights as follows:

    1. The greatest weight is given to when major threats are well understood. In order to identify effective management or protective actions, we need to understand the threats that impact the species' ability to persist;

    2. The second greatest weight is given to management or protective actions under U.S. authority or ability to influence the abatement of major threats. We acknowledge that management or protective actions outside of U.S. authority exist and may greatly influence recovery progress for transnational species that spend a portion of their life history within U.S. waters. However, for the purposes of prioritizing, we assign a greater weight to those species and recovery plans for which recovery actions are or are expected to be mainly under U.S. authority because this is where we have the greatest influence to implement recovery actions;

    3. The lowest weight is given to the certainty that management or protective actions will be effective, because the likelihood of effectiveness depends on whether sufficient knowledge of threats to develop actions exists and are under U.S. authority or ability to influence implementation of such actions;

    Table 2—Recovery Priority for Recovery Plan Development and Implementation Demographic risk a Recovery potential Major threats are well
  • understood
  • U.S. Jurisdiction, authority,
  • or influence exists for
  • management or protective
  • actions
  • to address major threats
  • Certainty that management
  • or protective actions
  • will be effective
  • Recovery
  • priority
  • HIGH High High High 1 HIGH High High Low to Moderate 2 HIGH High Low to Moderate High 3 MODERATE High High High 4 HIGH Low to Moderate High High 5 HIGH High Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 6 MODERATE High High Low to Moderate 7 LOW High High High 8 HIGH Low to Moderate High Low to Moderate 9 MODERATE High Low to Moderate High 10 LOW High High Low to Moderate 11 HIGH Low to Moderate Low to Moderate High 12 MODERATE Low to Moderate High High 13 MODERATE High Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 14 LOW High Low to Moderate High 15 HIGH Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 16 MODERATE Low to Moderate High Low to Moderate 17 LOW Low to Moderate High High 18 LOW High Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 19 MODERATE Low to Moderate Low to Moderate High 20 LOW Low to Moderate High Low to Moderate 21 MODERATE Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 22 LOW Low to Moderate Low to Moderate High 23 LOW Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 24 a Demographic Risk Rank was determined in Table 1. HIGH or MODERATE may be an Endangered species and MODERATE or LOW may be a Threatened species (see Table 1).
    Step 4. Assign Recovery Action Priority

    In Step 4, we prioritize recovery actions contained in a recovery plan. NMFS will assign recovery action priorities of 1 to 4 based on the criteria described below. Assigning priorities does not imply that some recovery actions are not important; instead, it simply means that they may be deferred while higher priority recovery actions are being implemented. All recovery actions will be assigned priorities based on the following:

    Priority 1 Actions: These are the recovery actions that must be taken to prevent extinction and often require urgent implementation. Because threatened species by definition are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future and are presently not in danger of extinction, Priority 1 should be given primarily to recovery actions for species ranked as HIGH demographic risk in Table 1. The use of Priority 1 recovery actions in a recovery plan for a species with MODERATE demographic risk should be done judiciously and thoughtfully. Even the highest priority actions within a particular plan will not be assigned a Priority 1 ranking unless they are actions necessary to prevent a species from becoming extinct or are research actions to fill knowledge gaps and identify management actions necessary to prevent extinction. Therefore, some plans will not have any Priority 1 actions.

    Priority 2 Actions: These are actions to remove, reduce, or mitigate major threats or fill knowledge gaps and prevent continued population decline, but their implementation is less urgent than Priority 1 actions.

    Priority 3 Actions: These are all actions that should be taken to remove, reduce, or mitigate any remaining threats and ensure the species can maintain an increasing or stable population to achieve delisting criteria, including monitoring to demonstrate achievement of demographic criteria.

    Priority 4 Actions: These are actions that are not linked to downlisting and/or delisting criteria and are not needed for ESA recovery, but are needed to facilitate post-delisting monitoring, such as the development of a post-delisting monitoring plan that provides monitoring design (e.g., sampling error estimates). Some of these actions may carry out post-delisting monitoring.

    Priority 0 Other Actions: These are actions that are not needed for ESA recovery but that would advance broader goals beyond delisting. Other actions include, for example, other legislative mandates or social, economic, and ecological values. These actions are given a zero priority number because they do not fall within the priorities for delisting the species, yet the numeric value allows tracking these types of actions in the NMFS' Recovery Action Mapping Tool Database.

    We must avoid assigning recovery actions a higher priority than is warranted. For example, threatened species by definition are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future and are presently not in danger of extinction; thus a Priority 1 would likely not apply to recovery actions for a threatened species. Even the highest priority actions within a particular plan should not be assigned a Priority 1 ranking unless they are actions necessary to prevent a species from becoming extinct or are research actions to fill knowledge gaps and identify management actions necessary to prevent extinction. Therefore, some plans will not have any Priority 1 actions. At the same time, we also need to be careful not to assign a lower priority than is warranted, simply because an action is but one component of a larger effort that must be undertaken. For instance, there is often confusion as to whether a research action can be assigned a Priority of 1 since, in and of itself, it will not prevent extinction. However, the outcome of a research project may provide critical information necessary to initiate a protective action to prevent extinction (e.g., applying the results of a genetics study to a captive propagation program for a seriously declining species) and would warrant Priority 1 status.

    Most actions will likely be Priority 2 or 3, since the majority of actions will likely contribute to preventing further declines of the species, but may not prevent extinction. This system recognizes the need to work toward the recovery of all listed species, not simply those facing the highest magnitude of threat. In general, NMFS intends that Priority 1 actions will be addressed before Priority 2 actions and Priority 2 actions before Priority 3 actions, etc. But we also recognize that some lower priority actions may be implemented before Priority 1 actions, for example because a partner is interested in implementing a lower priority action, because a Priority 1 action is not currently possible (e.g., there is lack of political support for the action), or because implementation of the Priority 1 action may take many years.

    For some species, especially those with complicated recovery programs involving many actions, it may be useful to assign sub-priorities within these categories, e.g., Priority 2a, Priority 2b, Priority 2c. If sub-priorities are assigned, a definition of, and criteria for, each sub-priority should be provided in the recovery plan.

    Table 3—Recovery Plan Recovery Action Priority Numbers Priority Description 1 Actions that must be taken to prevent extinction, including research actions to identify those actions that must be taken to prevent extinction. 2 Actions that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species population/habitat quality or in some other significant negative impact short of extinction. This includes research actions to identify those actions that must be taken to prevent such impacts. 3 Remaining actions that must be taken to achieve delisting criteria, including monitoring to demonstrate achievement of demographic criteria. 4 Actions necessary to facilitate post-delisting monitoring. 0 All other actions that are not required for ESA recovery but that would advance broader goals beyond delisting. Process for Applying the Revised Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities

    The lead NMFS Region or Headquarters will identify a species' Recovery Priority number (Step 3; Table 2) by assessing the species' Demographic Risk Category (Step 1; Table 1) and Recovery Potential (Step 2) and apply it to the Recovery Priority (Step 3; Table 2). Where multiple NMFS Regions are involved, the lead region or headquarters office will coordinate with all NMFS regions involved to reach consensus on the Demographic Risk Category, Recovery Potential, and Recovery Priority. Application of these guidelines to assess recovery priority relative to all species within our jurisdiction will be done on a biennial basis as part of the report to Congress (section 4(f)(3)) and through the 5-year review process (section 4(c)(2)). We anticipate the recovery prioritization to be a dynamic process—as more information is made available through research and monitoring about demographic risk, limiting factors and threats, the species could move up or down the priority scale depending on whether the new information reveals there are management or protective actions that can be implemented and be effective at recovering the species.

    Recovery Action Priority Numbers will be assigned to each recovery action when the recovery plan is developed, revised, or updated. These revised guidelines will apply only to plans that are developed, revised, or updated after the finalization of these guidelines. As the results of research or monitoring of recovery implementation become available, the Recovery Action Priority Numbers can be modified through plan updates or revisions to address changing priorities based on this new information.

    Proposed Revisions to Part C: Recovery Plans

    NMFS believes that periodic review of and updates to recovery plans and tracking recovery efforts are important elements of a successful recovery program. As we develop recovery plans for each species, specific recovery actions are identified and prioritized according to the criteria discussed above. This prioritization process recognizes that recovery plans should be viewed as living documents, and that research and monitoring, planning, and implementation describe a cycle of adaptive implementation of recovery actions for ESA-listed species. Even after recovery planning is complete and the plan is being implemented, key information gaps and uncertainties should constantly be evaluated. Research and monitoring results should inform recovery plan changes and refine strategies to implement recovery actions. The recovery action priority ranking, together with the species recovery priority, will be used to set priorities for funding and implementation of individual recovery actions.

    Definitions

    For purposes of this guidance only, the below terms have the following meanings:

    Endangered species: Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. NMFS interprets an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction.

    Demographic Risk: Characteristics of a population (productivity, spatial distribution, diversity, abundance, and population trend) that are indicators of the species ability to persist.

    Depensation: The effect on a population whereby, due to certain causes, a decrease in the breeding population leads to reduced production and survival of eggs or offspring.

    Foreseeable future: For purposes of this guidance, the “foreseeable future” describes the extent to which the Secretary can, in making determinations about the future conservation status of the species, reasonably rely on predictions about the future (Department of the Interior Solicitor's Memorandum M-37021, “The Meaning of `Foreseeable Future' in Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species Act”(Jan. 16, 2009)). The time period that constitutes the foreseeable future is case-specific and should consider the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, kinds of threats, ability to predict threats and their impacts, and the reliability of models used to forecast threats over that “foreseeable future.”

    Major Threat: A `major' threat is defined as a threat whose scope, immediacy, and intensity results in a response by the species that prevents the improvement of its status to the point that such species may not be reclassified or delisted based on the factors set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Conversely, non-major threats are those threats whose scope, immediacy, and intensity results in a response by the species but singularly or cumulatively do not prevent the improvement of its status to the point that such species may be reclassified or delisted based on the factors set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.

    Technically Feasible: Technically feasible refers to the scientific, engineering, and operational aspects of management or protective actions that are capable of being implemented.

    Threatened species: Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened species” is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The primary statutory difference between a threatened species and an endangered species is the timing of when a species is in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: May 24, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11157 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC969 Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing—Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) seeks public comment to assist the Secretary of Commerce's review of NMFS' August 2016 Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing: Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts (Technical Guidance), pursuant to section 10 of Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13795, Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy (April 28, 2017).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Technical Guidance is available in electronic form via the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/. You may submit comments by including NOAA-NMFS-2013-0177, by either of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0177, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments

    Mail: Send comments to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: Acoustic Guidance.

    Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the comment period ends. All comments received are a part of the public record and NMFS will generally post 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 is publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Scholik-Schlomer, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8449, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13795, Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy (82 FR 20815; April 28, 2017), states in section 2 that “It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage energy exploration and production, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, in order to maintain the Nation's position as a global energy leader and foster energy security and resilience for the benefit of the American people, while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible.”

    Among the requirements of EO 13795 is section 10, which calls for a review of NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing as follows: “The Secretary of Commerce shall review [NMFS' Technical Guidance] for consistency with the policy set forth in Section 2 of this order and, after consultation with the appropriate Federal agencies, take all steps permitted by law to rescind or revise that guidance, if appropriate.”

    The 2016 Technical Guidance referred to in EO 13795 is a technical document that compiles, interprets, and synthesizes scientific literature, to produce updated thresholds for assessing the effects of underwater sound on marine mammal hearing. The document provides updated received levels, or acoustic thresholds, above which individual marine mammals under NMFS' jurisdiction are predicted to experience changes in their hearing sensitivity (either temporary or permanent) for all underwater human-made sound sources. It is intended for use by NMFS analysts and managers and other relevant user groups and stakeholders, including other Federal agencies, when seeking to determine whether and how their activities are expected to result in hearing impacts to marine mammals via acoustic exposure. The Technical Guidance does not represent the entirety of an impact assessment but rather serves as one tool to help evaluate a proposed action. Mitigation and monitoring requirements in connection with any permits or authorizations issued by NMFS are management decisions made in the context of a proposed activity and a comprehensive effects analysis as well as legal requirements, and are beyond the direct scope of the Technical Guidance (i.e., the Technical Guidance may inform these decisions, but the Technical Guidance does not mandate any specific mitigation be required).

    NMFS acknowledges the importance of supporting sustainable ocean use, such as energy exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf, provided activities are conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Our development and implementation of the Technical Guidance are consistent with allowing activities vital to our nation's security and economy to proceed, including those mentioned in EO 13795. As an example, during the development of the Technical Guidance, NMFS recognized that action proponents may have varying abilities to model and estimate exposure, and that the Technical Guidance may be more complex than some action proponents are able to incorporate. Accordingly, NMFS developed optional user tools in the form of an alternative methodology and associated user spreadsheet to assist action proponents with the application the more complex acoustic thresholds. Additionally, NMFS recognized that for some proposed actions, analyses may have already substantially progressed using the prior thresholds or other methods for assessing hearing effects, and it would be impractical to begin those analyses anew, taking into account timing constraints, expense, and other considerations. Hence, NMFS has been using a transitional approach for “pipeline” cases that considers various factors to determine the extent to which the Technical Guidance would be considered.

    The Office of Management and Budget previously classified the Technical Guidance as a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA). As such, the document underwent three independent peer reviews, at three different stages its development, including a follow-up to one of the peer reviews, prior to its dissemination by NMFS. Details of each peer review are included within the Technical Guidance (Appendix C), and specific peer reviewer comments and NMFS' responses are at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/. In addition to three independent peer reviews, there were three public comment periods. A previously published Federal Register Notice (81 FR 51694; August 4, 2016) provides substantive public comments and NMFS' responses.

    NMFS is soliciting public comment and will also consult the appropriate Federal agencies to assist the Secretary of Commerce in reviewing the Technical Guidance for consistency with the policy in section 2 of EO 13795. The Technical Guidance will remain in use during this review, and this review will not delay the processing of any permits, applications, or consultations currently underway.

    NMFS advises the public to focus comments on those relating to the purpose of the review of the Technical Guidance under section 10 of EO 13795, which is to ensure consistency with the policy in section 2 of the EO, cited above. For example, NMFS welcomes comments on two particular aspects of the Technical Guidance:

    (1) Peer-reviewed scientific literature: Information regarding the availability of published new science relevant to marine mammal hearing or impacts of noise on hearing since the publication of the Technical Guidance and suggestions for how to consider new information within the Technical Guidance, and

    (2) Implementation support: Recommendations regarding how NMFS can further aid in the application and implementation of the Technical Guidance (based on difficulties encountered and/or ways NMFS can facilitate and/or improve implementation for action proponents).

    Dated: May 24, 2017. Donna S. Wieting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11035 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF466 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP) to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.

    DATES:

    The Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Thursday, June 15, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. All times listed are local island times. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP will meet at the Council Office, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813 and by teleconference. The teleconference will be conducted by telephone. The teleconference numbers are: U.S. toll-free: 1-888-482-3560 or International Access: +1 647 723-3959, and Access Code: 5228220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Schedule and Agenda for the Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP Meeting Thursday, June 15, 2017, 9 a.m.-11 a.m. 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Report on Previous Council Action Items 3. Council Issues A. Sustainable Fisheries Fund Marine Conservation Plan B. Options for Fishing Regulations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Monument Expansion Area C. Research Priorities

    i. Cooperative Research

    ii. Five-year Research Priorities

    D. Re-specification of ACL for the MHI Kona Crab Fishery 4. Hawaii FEP Community Activities 5. Hawaii FEP AP Issues

    A. Report of the Subpanels

    i. Island Fisheries Subpanel

    ii. Pelagic Fisheries Subpanel

    iii. Ecosystems and Habitat Subpanel

    iv. Indigenous Fishing Rights Subpanel

    B. Other Issues

    6. Public Comment 7. Discussion and Recommendations 8. Other Business

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11287 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs AGENCY:

    Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management is soliciting comments on the performance evaluation of the Washington Coastal Management Program. The Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments, and will also accept written comments as part of the evaluation of the Washington Coastal Management Plan.

    DATES:

    Washington Coastal Management Program Evaluation: The public meeting will be held on June 27, 2017, and written comments must be received on or before July 7, 2017.

    For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the program NOAA intends to evaluate by any of the following methods:

    Public Meeting and Oral Comments: A public meeting will be held in Lacey, Washington. For the specific location, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Written Comments: Please direct written comments to Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or email comments [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (240) 533-0730 or [email protected] Copies of the previous evaluation findings and 2016-2020 Assessment and Strategy may be viewed and downloaded on the Internet at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/evaluations. A copy of the evaluation notification letter and most recent progress report may be obtained upon request by contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

    Specific information on the periodic evaluation of the state and territorial coastal program that is the subject of this notice is detailed below as follows:

    Washington Coastal Management Program Evaluation

    You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:

    Date: June 27, 2017.

    Time: 5:30 p.m., local time.

    Location: Department of Ecology, Auditorium, 300 Desmond Drive SE., Lacey, WA 98503.

    Written public comments must be received on or before July 7, 2017.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Paul M. Scholz, Deputy Director, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11135 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE461 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings and hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 126th Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) meeting, Fishery Data Collection and Research Committee (FDCRC) and its 170th Council meeting to take actions on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held between June 13 and June 22. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The 126th SSC; FDCRC; Fishery Rights of Indigenous People Standing Committee; Pelagic, International, Enforcement and Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Standing Committee; and Executive and Budget Standing Committee meetings will be held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, phone: (808) 522-8220. The 170th Council meeting will be held at the Laniakea YWCA, Fuller Hall, 1040 Richards Street, Honolulu HI 96813, phone: (808) 538-7061. The Fishers Forum will be held at the Pomaika'i Ballrooms at Dole Cannery Iwilei, 735 Iwilei Rd, Honolulu, HI 96817, phone: (808) 369-8600.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, phone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 126th SSC meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on June 13-15, 2017. The FDCRC will be held on June 19, 2017, between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. The Fishery Rights of Indigenous People Standing Committee will be held on June 19, 2017, between 10:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. The Pelagic, International, Enforcement and VMS Standing Committee will be held on June 19, 2017, between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. The Executive and Budget Standing Committee will be held on June 19, 2017, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. The 170th Council meeting will be held between June 20, 2017, and June 22, 2017, between 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. On June 21, 2017, the Council will host a Fishers Forum between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. In addition to the agenda items listed here, the Council and its advisory bodies will hear recommendations from Council advisors. An opportunity to submit public comment will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change and will be announced in advance at the Council meeting. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. Background documents will be available from, and written comments should be sent to, Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, phone: (808) 522-8220 or fax: (808) 522-8226.

    Agenda for 126th SSC Meeting Tuesday, June 13, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 1. Introductions 2. Approval of Draft Agenda and Assignment of Rapporteurs 3. Status of the 125th SSC Meeting Recommendations 4. Report from the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Director 5. National Standard 2 Briefing 6. Program Planning and Research A. 2016 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report and recommendations 1. Archipelagic Report overview and highlights 2. Pelagic Report overview and highlights 3. Precious corals essential fish habitat (EFH) review and options 4. Non-fishing impacts to EFH review and options B. Evaluation of 2016 catch to the 2016 Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) (Action Item) C. Updates on the Ecosystem Component analysis in American Samoa, Marianas and Hawaii D. Options for fishing regulations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Monument Expansion Area (MEA) (Action Item) E. Updates to the Council's research priorities 1. Five-Year research priorities 2. Cooperative Research priorities F. Working group report on the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan updates G. Discussion on the Best Scientific Information Available policy guidance H. Public Comment I. SSC Discussion and Recommendations 7. Insular Fisheries A. Re-specification of acceptable biological catch for the main Hawaiian island Kona crab fishery (Action item) B. Public Comment C. SSC Discussion and Recommendations Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 8. Pelagic Fisheries A. Potential actions for the American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area (LVPA) (Action item) B. 2017 Hawaii longline bigeye tuna projections C. Longline Fisheries 1. American Samoa Longline Report 2. Updates on the development of spatial maps 3. SSC discussion on longline effort redistribution scenarios from monument closure D. Report on American Samoa LVPA and fisheries statistics E. International Fisheries 1. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) 2016 Stock Assessment 2. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) a. Pre-assessment Workshop Summary 3. International Scientific Committee (ISC) 2016 Blue Marlin stock assessment F. Public Comment G. SSC Discussion and Recommendations 9. Protected Species A. Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) insular false killer whale abundance estimate B. Seabird Workshop Plan C. Report of the Protected Species Advisory Committee Meeting D. Updates on Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultations E. Updates on ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Actions F. Public Comment G. SSC Discussion and Recommendations Thursday, June 15, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 10. Other Business A. 127th SSC Meeting B. Updates on the status of the SSC plan 11. Summary of SSC Recommendations to the Council Agenda for Fishery Data Collection and Research Committee (FDCRC) Monday, June 19, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 1. Welcome Remarks 2. Introductions 3. Update on previous FDCRC recommendations 4. Agency reports on fishery data collection improvement efforts A. Western Pacific Fishery Management Council B. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center C. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—Division of Fish and Wildlife D. Guam—Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources E. Hawaii—Division of Aquatic Resources F. American Samoa—Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources 5. Renewal of FDCRC Commitments to improving regional fishery data collection 6. Marine Recreational Information Program Pacific Islands Regional Implementation Plan 7. Data sharing agreements 8. Regional fishery independent data coordination 9. Report on FDCRC-Technical Committee 10. Public Comment 11. Discussions and Recommendations 12. Adjourn Agenda for the Fishery Rights of Indigenous People Standing Committee Monday, June 19, 2017, 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 1. Introductions 2. Community Development Program and Marine Education Training Funding 3. Report on indigenous fishing rights 4. Options for fishing regulations in the NWHI MEA (Action item) 5. American Samoa LVPA (Action item) 6. Other Indigenous Issues 7. Advisory Group Report and Recommendations A. Advisory Panels B. Plan Team C. Non-Commercial Fisheries Advisory Committee D. SSC 8. Public comment 9. Discussion and Recommendations Agenda for the Pelagic, International, Enforcement and VMS Standing Committee Monday, June 19, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pelagic & International Fisheries 1. 2017 Hawaii longline bigeye tuna catch projection 2. American Samoa LVPA (Action Item) 3. American Samoa longline permit modifications (Action Item) 4. Options for Fishing Regulations in the NWHI MEA (Action Item) 5. Report on Forum Fisheries Committee meeting 6. International Fisheries Meetings A. WCPFC B. IATTC C. ISC Blue Marlin Stock Assessment 7. Other Issues Enforcement and VMS 8. U.S. Coast Guard Report 9. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and General Counsel Enforcement Litigation Reports 10. Global Fishing Watch Demonstration 11. Other Issues 12. Advisory Group Report and Recommendations A. Advisory Panel B. Pelagic Plan Team C. Non-Commercial Fisheries Advisory Committee D. SSC 13. Public Comment 14. Pelagic and International Standing Committee Recommendations 15. Enforcement and VMS Standing Committee Recommendations Agenda for the Executive and Budget Standing Committee Monday June 19, 2017, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. 1. Administrative Report 2. Financial Report 3. Report on the Council Coordination Committee 4. Meetings and Workshops 5. Council Family Changes 6. Standard Operating Practices and Procedures (SOPP) Changes—Legislative Committee 7. Other Issues 8. Public Comment 9. Discussion and Recommendations Agenda for 170th Council Meeting Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 1. Welcome and Introductions Tribute to Richard Seman 2. Approval of the 170th Agenda 3. Approval of the 169th Meeting Minutes 4. Executive Director's Report 5. Agency Reports A. National Marine Fisheries Service 1. Pacific Islands Regional Office 2. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center B. NOAA Office of General Counsel, Pacific Islands Section C. U.S. State Department 1. UN Oceans Conference 2. UN Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service E. Enforcement 1. U.S. Coast Guard 2. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 3. NOAA Office of General Counsel, Enforcement Section F. Other Items 1. Status of Executive Order 13792 Review 2. Status of Executive Order 13795 Review G. Enforcement and VMS Standing Committee Recommendations H. Public Comment I. Council Discussion and Action 6. Program Planning and Research A. Update on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan Management Unit Species for Ecosystem Component Analysis B. 2016 SAFE Report and recommendations 1. Archipelagic Report overview and highlights 2. Pelagic Report overview and highlights 3. Precious Coral EFH review and options 4. Non-fishing impacts to EFH review and options C. Evaluation of 2016 catch to the 2016 ACLs (Action Item) D. Options for the Omnibus Refinement of EFH E. Update on Aquaculture Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) F. Best Scientific Information Available policy guidance G. Annual Update to the Council's research priorities 1. Five-Year research priorities 2. Cooperative Research priorities H. Regional, National and International Outreach & Education I. Advisory Group Report and Recommendations 1. Advisory Panel 2. Archipelagic Plan Team 3. Pelagic Plan Team 4. Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee 5. Protected Species Advisory Committee 6. Social Science Planning Committee 7. Non-Commercial Fisheries Advisory Committee 8. FDCRC 9. SSC J. Public Hearing K. Council Discussion and Action Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 4:00 p.m. Public Comment on Non-agenda Items Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. 7. Protected Species A. MHI insular false killer whale abundance estimate B. Seabird Workshop Plan C. Updates on ESA Consultations D. Updates on ESA and MMPA Actions 1. False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan Implementation 2. Other Actions E. Advisory Group Report and Recommendations 1. Advisory Panel 2. Protected Species Advisory Committee 3. FDCRC 4. SSC F. Public Comment G. Council Discussion and Action 8. Pelagic & International Fisheries A. 2017 Hawaii longline bigeye tuna catch projection B. American Samoa Annual Longline Fisheries Report C. American Samoa LVPA (Action Item) D. American Samoa Longline Permit Modifications (Action Item) E. Update on scoping and development of Deep-set Longline Programmatic EIS F. Report on Forum Fisheries Commission meeting G. International Fisheries Meetings 1. IATTC 2016 Stock Assessments 2. WCPFC a. Pre-assessment Workshop Summary 3. ISC Blue Marlin Stock Assessment H. Advisory Group Report and Recommendations 1. Advisory Panel 2. Pelagic Plan Team 3. Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee 4. FDCRC 5. SSC I. Fishery Rights of Indigenous People Standing Committee Recommendations J. Pelagic and International Standing Committee Recommendations K. Public Hearing L. Council Discussion and Action 9. Mariana Archipelago A. Guam 1. Isla Informe 2. Legislative Report 3. Enforcement Issues 4. Guam Fishery Council 5. Community Activities and Issues a. Proposed community plan for Inarajan and Umatac b. Update on Territorial Science Initiative c. Update on Manell-Geus Habitat Blueprint 6. Education and Outreach Initiatives B. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands 1. Arongol Falú/Asunton i Tano 2. Legislative Report 3. Enforcement Issues 4. Community Activities and Issues 5. Education and Outreach Initiatives C. Update on Marianas Trench Marine National Monument Management Plan and Sanctuary Request D. Marine Conservation Plans (Action Item) 1. Territory of Guam 2. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands E. Advisory Group Reports and Recommendations 1. Advisory Panel 2. Non-Commercial Fisheries Advisory Committee 3. FDCRC 4. SSC F. Fishery Rights of Indigenous People Standing Committee Recommendations G. Public Hearing H. Council Discussion and Action Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., Fishers Forum—From Boat to Web: Understanding Catch Reporting and Fishery Monitoring Thursday June 22, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 10. Hawaii Archipelago & Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) A. Moku Pepa B. Legislative Report C. Enforcement Issues D. Community Issues 1. Promise to Paeaina 2. Moomomi Community-based management plan meetings E. Re-specification of annual catch limits for the main Hawaiian island Kona crab fishery (Action Item) F. Options for Fishing Regulations in the NWHI MEA (Action Item) G. Marine Conservation Plan for PRIA and Hawaii (Action Item) H. Report on MHI Bottomfish Working Group Meeting I. State of Hawaii Coral Reef Bleaching Management Plan J. Education and Outreach Initiatives K. Advisory Group Report and Recommendations 1. Advisory Panel 2. Non-Commercial Fisheries Advisory Committee 3. FDCRC 4. SSC L. Fishery Rights of Indigenous People Standing Committee Recommendations M. Pelagic & International Standing Committee Recommendations N. Public Hearing O. Council Discussion and Action 11. American Samoa Archipelago A. Motu Lipoti B. Fono Report C. Enforcement Issues D. Community Activities and Issues E. Fisheries Development 1. Longline Dock Update 2. Aunu'u Fishermen Development 3. Tutuila and Manu'a Alia Repair 4. Fishermen Training Program and Lending Scheme 5. Working Alia Project 6. Fagatogo Fish Market & Bottomfish Export 7. Manu'a Fishermen Cooperatives F. Shark Law Revision G. Education and Outreach 1. AmeriCorps and Kupu Hawaii Climate Change Resilience Internship Program 2. Graduating Scholarship Students Employment 3. Summer Fisheries High School Course H. Advisory Group Reports and Recommendations 1. Advisory Panel 2. FDCRC 3. SSC I. Fishery Rights of Indigenous People Standing Committee Recommendations J. Public Comment K. Council Discussion and Action 12. Administrative Matters A. Financial Reports B. Administrative Reports C. Update on information inquiries and responses D. Council Family Changes 1. Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee 2. Advisory Panels 3. Others E. Report on the annual CCC meeting F. SOPP Changes 1. Report of the legislative committee G. Meetings and Workshops H. Other Business I. Fishery Rights of Indigenous People Standing Committee Recommendations J. Executive and Budget Standing Committee Recommendations K. Public Comment L. Council Discussion and Action 13. Other Business

    Non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion and formal Council action during its 170th meeting. However, Council action on regulatory issues will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least five days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11283 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIA) in OMB within 30 days of this notice's publication by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control No. 3038-0049.”

    • By email addressed to: [email protected] or

    • By mail addressed to: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington DC 20503.

    A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0049.”

    • By mail addressed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581;

    • By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or

    • Through the Commission's Web site at http://comments.cftc.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed herein may be obtained by visiting http://RegInfo.gov.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the ICR will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jocelyn Partridge, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, (202) 418-5926, email: [email protected]; Meghan Tente, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, (202) 418-5785, email: [email protected]; Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, Division of Swaps and Intermediary Oversight, (202) 418-5496, email: [email protected]; or Dana Brown, Paralegal Specialist, Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418-5093, email: [email protected]; or (202)418-5093.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Procedural Requirements for Requests for Interpretative, No-Action and Exemptive Letters (OMB Control No. 3038-0049). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number. This collection covers the information requirements for voluntary requests for, and the issuance of, interpretative, no-action, and exemptive letters submitted to Commission staff pursuant to the provisions of § 140.99 of the Commission's regulations,2 and related requests for confidential treatment pursuant to § 140.98(b) 3 of the Commission's regulations. It includes reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    2 17 CFR 140.99. An archive containing CFTC staff letters may be found at http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/CFTCStaffLetters/index.htm.

    3 17 CFR 140.98(b).

    The collection requirements described herein are voluntary. They apply to parties that choose to request a benefit from Commission staff in the form of the regulatory action described in § 140.99. Such benefits may include, for example, relief from some or all of the burdens associated with other collections of information, relief from regulatory obligations that do not constitute collections of information, interpretations, or extensions of time for compliance with certain Commission regulations. It is likely that persons who would opt to request action under § 140.99 will have determined that the information collection burdens that they would assume by doing so will be outweighed substantially by the relief that they seek to receive.

    The information collection associated with § 140.99 of the Commission's regulations is necessary, and would be used, to assist Commission staff in understanding the type of relief that is being requested and the basis for the request. It is also necessary, and would be used, to provide staff with a sufficient basis for determining whether: (1) Granting the relief would be necessary or appropriate under the facts and circumstances presented by the requestor; (2) the relief provided should be conditional and/or time-limited; and (3) granting the relief would be consistent with staff responses to requests that have been presented under similar facts and circumstances. In some cases, the requested relief might be granted upon the condition that those who seek the benefits of that relief fulfill certain notice and other reporting obligations that serve as substituted compliance for regulatory requirements that would otherwise be imposed. In some cases, the conditions might include reporting or recordkeeping requirements that are necessary to ensure that the relief granted by Commission staff is appropriate. In some cases, the parties obtaining relief may be subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are necessary to monitor for the parties' compliance with the conditions imposed. The foregoing categories may or may not be overlapping. Once again, it is likely that those who would comply with these conditions will have determined that the burden of complying with the conditions is outweighed by the benefit of the relief that they seek to receive. The information collection associated with § 140.98(b) of the Commission's regulations is necessary to provide a mechanism whereby persons requesting no-action, interpretative and exemption letters may seek temporary confidential treatment of their request and the Commission staff response thereto and the grounds upon which such confidential treatment is sought.

    On March 29, 2017, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 82 FR 15514, March 29, 2017 (“60-Day Notice”).

    Burden Statement: In order to establish estimates of the annual information collection burden associated with the exemptive, no-action and interpretative letters that may be issued by Commission staff during the three year renewal period, Commission staff reviewed the letters of this type that were issued by Commission staff during 2016. This timeframe was chosen because it was believed that such recent experience would be indicative of both the quantity of requests that Commission staff expects to receive and the quantity of letters that Commission staff expects to iss