Federal Register Vol. 82, No.105,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 105 (June 2, 2017)

Page Range25503-25713
FR Document

82_FR_105
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 25532 - Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency ExemptionsPDF
82 FR 25616 - Tribal Listening Session; Oklahoma City Probate Hearings Division Field OfficePDF
82 FR 25567 - Notification of Submission to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services; Pesticides; Technical Amendment to Data Requirements for Antimicrobial PesticidesPDF
82 FR 25627 - Government In The Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 25597 - Change in Comment Deadline for Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of AluminumPDF
82 FR 25511 - Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations UpdatePDF
82 FR 25642 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Implement the Capped Contingency Liquidity Facility in the Government Securities Division RulebookPDF
82 FR 25602 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
82 FR 25602 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
82 FR 25648 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 25521 - Special Local Regulation; Motor City Mile; Detroit River; Detroit, MIPDF
82 FR 25604 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 25517 - Safety Zone; East River and Buttermilk Channel, Brooklyn, NYPDF
82 FR 25519 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Vidalia, LAPDF
82 FR 25604 - Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control ActPDF
82 FR 25529 - Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Delay of Effective DatePDF
82 FR 25568 - Restoring Internet FreedomPDF
82 FR 25618 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lava Beds National Monument, Tulelake, CAPDF
82 FR 25626 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GAPDF
82 FR 25623 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, GAPDF
82 FR 25621 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GAPDF
82 FR 25625 - Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 25622 - Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 25619 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GAPDF
82 FR 25624 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, Fort Wayne, INPDF
82 FR 25620 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, KSPDF
82 FR 25615 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
82 FR 25654 - In the Matter of the Designation of Abu Nidal Organization, Also Known as ANO, Also Known as Black September, Also Known as the Fatah Revolutionary Council, Also Known as the Arab Revolutionary Council, Also Known as the Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Also Known as the Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as AmendedPDF
82 FR 25654 - In the Matter of the Designation of Abu Nidal Organization, Also Known as ANO, Also Known as Black September, Also Known as the Fatah Revolutionary Council, Also Known as the Arab Revolutionary Council, Also Known as the Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Also Known as the Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as AmendedPDF
82 FR 25616 - 30-Day Extension of Nomination Period for the Royalty Policy CommitteePDF
82 FR 25657 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce BenefitsPDF
82 FR 25633 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: Multi-State Plan Program External Review Case Intake Form, OPM Form 1840PDF
82 FR 25606 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 25617 - 2017 Final Fee Rate and Fingerprint FeesPDF
82 FR 25630 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services SurveyPDF
82 FR 25607 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 25600 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingsPDF
82 FR 25601 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 25608 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 25515 - Safety Zone; Detroit Symphony Orchestra Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Shores, MIPDF
82 FR 25654 - Notice of Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council VacancyPDF
82 FR 25590 - Elimination of Main Studio RulePDF
82 FR 25598 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Notice of Correction to Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 25632 - Notice of Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 25631 - California State Plan; New Operational Status AgreementPDF
82 FR 25610 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 25655 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Joint Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 25599 - Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) ReviewsPDF
82 FR 25535 - Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint BoardPDF
82 FR 25597 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 114-Peoria, Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bell Sports, Inc.; Subzone 114F; (Sports Equipment); Rantoul, IllinoisPDF
82 FR 25596 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64-Jacksonville, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Hans-Mill Corporation; Subzone 64D; (Household Trash Cans and Plastic Storage Totes); Jacksonville, FloridaPDF
82 FR 25634 - Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988; Report of Matching Program: RRB and State Medicare/Medicaid Agencies (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 25630 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of Currently Approved Collection #1121-0277: OJJDP National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) Feedback Form PackagePDF
82 FR 25629 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Extension With or Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection: Drug Questionnaire (DEA-341)PDF
82 FR 25605 - Notice of Regular MeetingPDF
82 FR 25603 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; U.S. Department of Education Supplemental Information for the SF-424 FormPDF
82 FR 25633 - National Endowment for the Arts; Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 25658 - Advisory Committee on Prosthetic and Special Disabilities; Notice of Meeting CancellationPDF
82 FR 25596 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 25648 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the First Trust Municipal High Income ETFPDF
82 FR 25639 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Requirements That Will Be Duplicative of CATPDF
82 FR 25635 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Requirements That Will Be Duplicative of CATPDF
82 FR 25607 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 25611 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration EvaluationPDF
82 FR 25609 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request: Chimpanzee Research Use Form (Office of the Director)PDF
82 FR 25628 - Tool Chests and Cabinets From China and VietnamPDF
82 FR 25627 - Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 25595 - Notice of Request for Approval of Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 25539 - Availability of Funds and Collection of ChecksPDF
82 FR 25509 - Special Conditions: Pilatus Aircraft Limited Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47; Autothrust SystemPDF
82 FR 25605 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 25612 - Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for South Sacramento County, California; Joint Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact ReportPDF
82 FR 25568 - Determination To Approve Alternative Final Cover Request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, Montana, LandfillPDF
82 FR 25532 - Approval of Alternative Final Cover Request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, Montana, LandfillPDF
82 FR 25564 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Acryl Fentanyl Into Schedule IPDF
82 FR 25559 - Proposed Amendment VOR Federal Airways V-66, V-189, V-260, and V-266; in the Vicinity of Franklin, VAPDF
82 FR 25561 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Cheyenne, WYPDF
82 FR 25563 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Dixon, WYPDF
82 FR 25547 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25545 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25550 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25552 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25556 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25554 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25523 - Air Plan Approval; Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to AttainmentPDF
82 FR 25660 - Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Technology Transitions; Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking To Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access ServicesPDF
82 FR 25658 - Departmental Offices; Renewal of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets AssociationPDF
82 FR 25542 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25503 - Rules of Procedure Governing Cases Before the Office of Hearings and AppealsPDF

Issue

82 105 Friday, June 2, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25607-25609 2017-11428 2017-11431 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Texas Advisory Committee, 25596 2017-11403 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Detroit Symphony Orchestra Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI, 25515-25517 2017-11427 East River and Buttermilk Channel, Brooklyn, NY, 25517-25519 2017-11463 Lower Mississippi River, Vidalia, LA, 25519-25521 2017-11462 Special Local Regulations: Motor City Mile; Detroit River; Detroit, MI, 25521-25523 2017-11465 Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update, 25511-25515 2017-11473 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 25602-25603 2017-11469 2017-11468 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25655-25657 2017-11420 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Acryl Fentanyl into Schedule I, 25564-25567 2017-11215 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Supplemental Information for the SF-424 form, 25603-25604 2017-11406 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 25523-25529 2017-10934 Approval of Alternative Final Cover Request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, MT, Landfill, 25532-25535 2017-11227 Pesticide Tolerances: Bifenthrin; Emergency Exemption, 25532 C2--2016--29882 Pesticides: Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Delay of Effective Date, 25529-25532 2017-11458 PROPOSED RULES Determination to Approve Alternative Final Cover Request: Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, MT, Landfill, 25568 2017-11228 Pesticides: Technical Amendment to Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides, 25567-25568 2017-11569 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 25604-25605 2017-11464 Receipt of Information under Toxic Substances Control Act, 25604 2017-11460 Farm Credit System Insurance Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, 25605 2017-11408 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Pilatus Aircraft Limited Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47; Autothrust System, 25509-25511 2017-11347 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 25542-25545, 25552-25554 2017-10607 2017-11003 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 25545-25547, 25554-25559 2017-10981 2017-11002 2017-11005 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 25547-25552 2017-11004 2017-11006 Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Cheyenne, WY, 25561-25563 2017-11079 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Dixon, WY, 25563-25564 2017-11078 VOR Federal Airways; Amendments: V-66, V-189, V-260, and V-266; in the Vicinity of Franklin, VA, 25559-25561 2017-11080 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Technology Transitions; Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; etc., 25660-25713 2017-10713 Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board, 25535-25538 2017-11418 PROPOSED RULES Elimination of Main Studio Rule, 25590-25594 2017-11425 Restoring Internet Freedom, 25568-25590 2017-11455 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25605-25606 2017-11336 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25655-25657 2017-11420 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks, 25539-25542 2017-11380 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25655-25657 2017-11420 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 25607 2017-11399 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 25606 2017-11398 2017-11437 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for South Sacramento County, CA, 25612-25614 2017-11293 Permit Applications: Endangered Species, 25615-25616 2017-11444 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Bell Sports, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 114, Peoria, IL, 25597 2017-11417 Hans-Mill Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 64, Jacksonville, FL, 25596 2017-11416 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Hearings Interior Hearings and Appeals Office, Interior Department NOTICES Meetings: Tribal Listening Session; Oklahoma City Probate Hearings Division Field Office, 25616 C1--2017--11186 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration Evaluation, 25611-25612 2017-11396 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Hearings: National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum, 25597-25598 2017-11557 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Hearings and Appeals Office, Interior Department

See

National Indian Gaming Commission

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Royalty Policy Committee, 25616-25617 2017-11441
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India; Correction, 25598-25599 2017-11424 Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews, 25599-25600 2017-11419 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, 25627-25628 2017-11390 Tool Chests and Cabinets from China and Vietnam, 25628-25629 2017-11391 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25627 2017-11568 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Drug Questionnaire, 25629-25630 2017-11409 Office for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention National Training and Technical Assistance Center Feedback Form Package, 25630 2017-11410
Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey, 25630-25631 2017-11432
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25632-25633 2017-11423 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25633 2017-11405 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission NOTICES 2017 Final Fee Rate and Fingerprint Fees, 25617 2017-11434 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Chimpanzee Research Use Form, 25609-25610 2017-11393 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings: Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review; Public Meetings, 25600-25601 2017-11430 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 25601 2017-11429 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, KS, 25620-25621 2017-11446 Lava Beds National Monument, Tulelake, CA, 25618-25619 2017-11454 Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA, 25619-25622 2017-11448 2017-11451 Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA; Correction, 25622-25623, 25625-25626 2017-11449 2017-11450 Repatriation of Cultural Items: Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, Fort Wayne, IN, 25624-25625 2017-11447 Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA, 25623-25624, 25626-25627 2017-11452 2017-11453 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES California State Plan; New Operational Status Agreement, 25631-25632 2017-11422 Advocacy Outreach Office of Advocacy and Outreach NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25595-25596 2017-11389 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Multi-State Plan Program External Review Case Intake Form, 25633-25634 2017-11438 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Report of Matching Program: Railroad Retirement Board and State Medicare/Medicaid Agencies, 25634-25635 2017-11414 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25648 2017-11466 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 25642-25648 2017-11471 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 25635-25639 2017-11400 NYSE Arca, Inc., 25639-25642 2017-11401 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 25648-25654 2017-11402 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Rules of Procedure Governing Cases Before the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 25503-25509 2017-10471 State Department State Department NOTICES Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Abu Nidal Organization, aka ANO, et al., 25654 2017-11442 Designations as Global Terrorists: Abu Nidal Organization, aka ANO, aka Black September, aka the Fatah Revolutionary Council, aka the Arab Revolutionary Council, aka the Arab Revolutionary Brigades, aka the Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims, 25654 2017-11443 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25610 2017-11421 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council, 25654-25655 2017-11426 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, 25658 2017-10656 Multiemployer Pension Plan Application to Reduce Benefits, 25657-25658 2017-11440
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Prosthetic and Special Disabilities; Cancellation, 25658 2017-11404 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Communications Commission, 25660-25713 2017-10713 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.

82 105 Friday, June 2, 2017 Rules and Regulations SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 121 and 134 RIN 3245-AG82 Rules of Procedure Governing Cases Before the Office of Hearings and Appeals AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is amending the rules of practice of its Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) to implement section 869 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and section 1833 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This legislation authorizes OHA to decide Petitions for Reconsideration of Size Standards (Size Standard Petitions or Petitions). This rule also revises the rules of practice for OHA appeals of agency employee disputes.

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective on July 3, 2017.

Applicability Date: Size Standard Petitions pertaining to size standards revised, modified, or established in a final rule published during the interval between November 25, 2015, and July 3, 2017 shall be considered timely if filed within 30 calendar days of the latter date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda (Lin) DiGiandomenico, Attorney Advisor, at (202) 401-8206 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends the rules of practice for the SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) in order to implement section 869(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Public Law 114-92, 129 Stat. 726, November 25, 2015 (NDAA 2016). This legislation added new paragraph 3(a)(9) to the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(9), to authorize OHA to hear and decide Petitions for Reconsideration of Size Standards (Size Standard Petitions or Petitions). A Size Standard Petition may be filed at OHA after SBA publishes a final rule in the Federal Register to revise, modify, or establish a size standard. This rule creates a new subpart I in OHA's regulations (13 CFR part 134) to set out detailed rules of practice for Size Standard Petitions, revises OHA's general rules of practice in subparts A and B of part 134 as required by the new legislation, and amends SBA's small business size regulations (13 CFR part 121) to include Size Standard Petitions as part of SBA's process for establishing size standards.

This rule also revises the rules of practice for OHA appeals of agency employee disputes in subpart H of part 134, to comport with SBA's revisions of its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 37 71, The Employee Dispute Resolution Process.

On October 7, 2016, SBA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 69723), a proposed rule to implement section 869(b) of NDAA 2016 and to revise procedures for OHA appeals of agency employee disputes. The proposed rule provided a 60-day comment period, with comments due on December 6, 2016. During the comment period SBA received three comments, each of which concerned the implementation of section 869(b). No comments were received concerning employee disputes.

On December 23, 2016, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328 (NDAA 2017). Section 1833(b) of NDAA 2017 added new subparagraph 3(a)(9)(E) to the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(9)(E). This provision authorizes OHA to accept Size Standard Petitions after SBA issues rules or guidance for processing these cases; SBA is issuing those procedural rules today, in this final rule. Until this final rule, SBA had no specific rules or guidance for processing Size Standard Petitions, and thus OHA dismissed without prejudice the Size Standard Petitions that were filed. This new statutory provision also provides that Size Standard Petitions pertaining to size standards revised, modified, or established in a final rule published during the interval between November 25, 2015, and the effective date of this final rule will be considered timely if filed within 30 calendar days of that effective date.

Summary of Comments and SBA's Response A. Part 121

SBA proposed adding new paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to § 121.102 to include Size Standard Petitions as part of SBA's process for establishing size standards. New paragraph (e) requires SBA to include instructions for filing a Size Standard Petition in any final rule revising, modifying, or establishing a size standard. There were no comments on it and SBA is adopting it exactly as proposed.

New paragraph (f) requires SBA to publish a notice in the Federal Register within 14 calendar days after a Size Standard Petition is filed. SBA received one comment on proposed new § 121.102(f). The commenter requested that SBA also have an online tracking system, preferably on the Web site regulations.gov, for Size Standard Petitions filed at OHA. The same commenter also suggested that SBA include information on Size Standard Petitions in the record for the applicable revised, modified, or newly established size standard.

In response, SBA notes that OHA has no online tracking system as yet; however, systems already in place will enable the public to track Size Standard Petition cases. First, notices for Federal Register publication appear automatically on federalregister.gov, and the public may use that site's advanced search feature to locate them. Second, once issued, OHA's decisions are public and available at sba.gov/oha/decisions. Regarding the inclusion of information on Size Standard Petitions in the record for size standards rulemakings, SBA declines to add this requirement, leaving it up to SBA's Office of Size Standards to determine what to include in the rulemaking record for a particular rule. Thus, SBA is adopting the proposed § 121.102(f) as proposed, with one editorial change to the first sentence, where “announcing a size standard” is replaced with “announcing the size standard”.

Proposed new paragraph (g) would require SBA to publish a document in the Federal Register where SBA grants a Petition for Reconsideration of a Size Standard that had been revised or modified. There were no public comments on this provision. SBA is changing this provision to clarify that OHA will remand the case to SBA's Office of Size Standards for further action.

B. Part 134, Subparts A and B

SBA proposed to revise four sections contained in subparts A and B of part 134. These are §§ 134.101 (Definitions) and 134.102 (Jurisdiction of OHA) in subpart A; and §§ 134.201 (Scope of the rules in this subpart B) and 134.227 (Finality of decisions) in subpart B. SBA received no comments on any of these sections. SBA added a definition to clarify that Step One and Step Two refer to the Employee Dispute Resolution Process described in SBA Standard Operating Procedure, 37 71, as denoted in § 134.801(a). All other revisions are exactly as proposed.

C. Part 134, Subpart H

SBA proposed to revise §§ 134.801, 134.803, 134.804, 134.805, 134.807, 134.808, and 134.809 of subpart H. All of these sections concern OHA appeals of SBA employee disputes. SBA received no comments regarding the proposed revision of any of these sections, and is adopting these revisions exactly as proposed, with three minor changes. In § 134.805(d), the words “at his or her home address” are being removed as unnecessary since service is by email. In § 134.807(a), the words “it wishes” are being replaced with “SBA wishes” for clarity. In § 134.809(a), an official's title is being corrected.

D. Part 134, Subpart I

SBA proposed to add subpart I setting forth the rules of practice before OHA for Petitions for Reconsideration of Size Standards. SBA received no comments regarding the proposed new §§ 134.901 (Scope of the rules in this subpart I), 134.905 (Notice and order), 134.907 (Filing and service), 134.908 (The administrative record), 134.909 (Standard of review), 134.911 (Response to the Size Standard Petition), 134.912 (Discovery and oral hearings), 134.913 (New evidence), 134.914 (The decision), 134.915 (Remand), 134.917 (Equal Access to Justice Act), and 134.918 (Judicial review). SBA is adopting these new sections as proposed, with one minor change to the first sentence in § 134.914, where the second “the” is being deleted.

Proposed § 134.902 provides that any person “adversely affected” by a new, revised, or modified size standard has standing to file a Petition within 30 days from the date of publication of the final rule promulgating that size standard. Paragraph (b) provides that a business entity is not “adversely affected” unless it conducts business in the industry associated with the size standard being challenged, and it either qualified as a small business concern before the size standard was revised or modified, or it would qualify as a small business concern under the size standard as revised or modified.

SBA received two comments. One comment supported the proposed rule because it precludes businesses that are large under both the existing and the modified or revised size standard from filing Size Standard Petitions. The second comment opposed the proposed rule for that same reason, asserting that the statute does not limit the availability of an OHA review only to small or would-be small businesses, but was meant to include all adversely-affected businesses, including large businesses. The second commenter believes that it is adversely affected by a change in a size standard that favors its competitors, and asserts that concerns also should be able to request review on SBA's decision in a rulemaking not to modify or revise a size standard, but to keep it the same.

SBA disagrees with the second comment. The statute provides that SBA's OHA, in deciding Size Standard Petitions, “shall use the same process it uses to decide challenges to the size of a small business concern.” Small Business Act section 3(a)(9)(C), 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(9)(C). A challenge to a concern's small business size status, also called a size protest, occurs when a competitive procurement or order has been restricted to or reserved for small businesses or a particular group of small businesses. The size protest, filed by either a disappointed offeror or the Government, is initially decided by an SBA Area Office in a size determination which may be appealed to OHA. At both the protest (Area Office) and the appeal (OHA) stages, the process of deciding challenges to a concern's small business size status requires a non-Government person bringing the challenge to have standing as a small business offeror remaining in the competition and still eligible for award. See 13 CFR 121.1001(a)(1) (“Any offeror whom the contracting officer has not eliminated for reasons unrelated to size”), 13 CFR 134.302(a) (“Appeals from size determinations . . . may be filed with OHA by the following, as applicable: Any person adversely affected by a size determination . . . .”); Size Appeal of Straughan Environmental, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5767, at 3 (2016), available at www.sba.gov/oha. Because the statute requires OHA to follow the process used in size challenges, and under the process used in size challenges only a small business has standing to file either a size protest or a size appeal, SBA believes it was the intent of Congress to allow only a small business to file a Size Standard Petition. Therefore, SBA is adopting new § 134.902 exactly as proposed.

Section 134.903(a) reiterates the statutory 30-day deadline for filing a Petition, requires dismissal of an untimely Petition, and clarifies that the days counted are calendar days. Section 134.903(b) requires dismissal as premature a Petition filed in response to a proposed rule. The retention of an existing size standard is not considered to be the revision, modification, or establishment of a size standard and is not subject to these procedures, and so § 134.903(c) requires OHA to dismiss a petition challenging the retention of an existing size standard.

There were two comments. One comment expressed support for the 30-day deadline and summary dismissal provisions. The second comment requested a process whereby one may comment on and request a review of a size standard change at any time, not just within 30 days of the change, so long as the change has produced a negative financial impact on businesses. SBA notes, with respect to the second comment, that the 30-day deadline for filing a Petition is statutory and thus SBA may not change it. As for opportunities to comment on size standards, there is a public comment period each time SBA publishes a proposed rule, and during this public comment period any person may submit a comment for SBA to consider and address in formulating the final rule. During the public comment period, commenters need not demonstrate standing, and may comment on any size standard being proposed, regardless of whether the proposed rule would modify or revise that size standard. Outside of public comment periods, persons may address their concerns about any size standard at any time to SBA's Size Standards Office pursuant to § 121.102(d). SBA is adopting new § 134.903 exactly as proposed.

Section 134.904 sets out the requirements for a Size Standard Petition. Among these, the Petition must include any public comments the Petitioner had submitted during the rulemaking on the challenged size standard, and the Petitioner also must demonstrate standing for each challenged size standard. One commenter suggested an additional requirement, that the Petitioner must actually have submitted a public comment during the rulemaking. The same commenter also noted its support for the requirement to demonstrate standing for each challenged size standard. SBA disagrees with the suggestion to require the Petitioner to have submitted a public comment during the rulemaking, because this additional requirement would be overly restrictive. Thus, SBA is adopting new § 134.904 as proposed, with the deletion of the unnecessary mail code in § 134.904(d)(1).

Section 134.906 permits interested persons with a direct stake in the outcome of the case to intervene and obtain a copy of the Petition, under a protective order if necessary. One commenter requested SBA to change this provision to require potential intervenors to meet the same standing requirement as petitioners, in order to prevent large businesses from having a “back door” into the size standard review process. SBA disagrees with this comment. The proposed rule requires only “a direct stake in the outcome” and the OHA Judge will make that determination on a case-by-case basis. SBA is adopting new § 134.906 exactly as proposed.

Section 134.910 requires OHA to dismiss a Petition under four scenarios. One commenter stated support for dismissal under those scenarios. SBA is adopting new § 134.910 exactly as proposed.

Section 134.916 sets out the effects of OHA's decision in a Size Standard Petition case. Paragraph (a) provides that if the challenged size standard is a modified or revised size standard, and OHA grants the Size Standard Petition, SBA will rescind the challenged size standard and restore the prior size standard, which will remain in effect until SBA issues a new size standard. If the challenged size standard is newly established, and OHA grants the Size Standard Petition, the challenged size standard remains in effect. Paragraph (b) provides that if OHA denies a Size Standard Petition, the challenged size standard remains in effect.

One commenter requested clarification of the effect that OHA's grant of a Size Standard Petition would have on procurement actions. The commenter posed the hypothetical of a concern that is a small business under the revised size standard but is not a small business under the prior size standard. The concern self-certifies as small under the revised size standard with its initial offer including price. Later, OHA grants a Size Standard Petition and SBA rescinds the revised size standard, restoring the prior size standard, under which that concern is not a small business. Would contract award to that concern as a small business be valid even though the prior size standard has been restored?

SBA responds to this comment by stating that the contract award to that concern as a small business is valid despite SBA's rescission of the revised, higher size standard. This result is consistent with the general rule, stated in § 121.404(a), that a concern's small business eligibility is determined on the self-certification date and is based on the size standard in effect at that time. Thus, the procuring agency may count the award toward its small business goals. On the other hand, if the procuring agency amends the solicitation and requires new self-certifications, those self-certifications will be based on the size standard in effect on the day they are made. SBA is revising the text of § 134.916(a) to clarify the intended effect of an OHA decision granting a Size Standard Petition in light of this public comment, and also to provide that, on remand, SBA may take any appropriate action to rescind the challenged revised or modified size standard.

Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175 and 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) Executive Order 12866

OMB has determined that this rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. This rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800. This rule establishes the procedures for Petitions for Reconsideration of Size Standards at SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) and revises procedural rules at OHA for agency employee disputes. As such, the rule has no effect on the amount or dollar value of any Federal contract requirements or of any financial assistance provided through SBA. Therefore, the rule is not likely to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, result in a major increase in costs or prices, or have a significant adverse effect on competition or the United States economy. In addition, this rule does not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of such recipients, nor raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Executive Order 12988

This action meets applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

Executive Order 13175

For the purposes of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, SBA has determined that this final rule will not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, SBA determines that this final rule does not require consultations with tribal officials or warrant the publication of a Tribal Summary Impact Statement.

Executive Order 13132

This rule does not have Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. 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 the Executive Order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The SBA has determined that this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule revises the regulations governing cases before SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), SBA's administrative tribunal. These regulations are procedural by nature. Specifically, the final rule establishes rules of practice for Petitions for Reconsideration of Size Standards (Size Standard Petitions), a new type of administrative litigation mandated by 869(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This legislation provides a new statutory right to challenge a size standard revised, modified, or established by the SBA through a final rule. Further, this legislation requires OHA to hear any Size Standard Petitions that are filed. This final rule merely provides the rules of practice for the orderly hearing and disposition of Size Standard Petitions at OHA. While SBA did not anticipate that this final rule would have a significant economic impact on any small business, we did request comments from any small business setting out how and to what degree this final rule would affect it economically. No comments were received regarding RFA issues.

The Small Business Size Regulations provide that persons requesting to change existing size standards or to establish new size standards may address these requests to SBA's Office of Size Standards. 13 CFR 121.102(d). Over the past five years, fewer than ten letters concerning size standards have been submitted per year, supporting SBA's belief that this final rule will not affect a substantial number of small entities. Further, a business adversely affected by a final rule revising a size standard has always had (and would continue to have) the option of judicial review in Federal court, yet the SBA knows of no such lawsuit ever having been filed.

In addition to establishing rules of practice for Size Standard Petitions, this rule revises OHA's rules of practice for SBA Employee Disputes. This rulemaking is procedural, would impose no significant additional requirements on small entities, and would have minimal, if any, effect on small entities.

Therefore, the Administrator of SBA certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects 13 CFR Part 121

Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs—business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 134

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Lawyers, Organization and functions (government agencies).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Small Business Administration amends 13 CFR parts 121 and 134 as follows:

PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662, and 694a(9).

2. Amend § 121.102 by adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:
§ 121.102 How does SBA establish size standards?

(e) When SBA publishes a final rule in the Federal Register revising, modifying, or establishing a size standard, SBA will include in the final rule, an instruction that interested persons may file a petition for reconsideration of a revised, modified, or established size standard at SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) within 30 calendar days after publication of the final rule in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(9) and part 134, subpart I of this chapter. The instruction will provide the mailing address, facsimile number, and email address of OHA.

(f) Within 14 calendar days after a petition for reconsideration of a size standard is filed, unless it appears OHA will dismiss the petition for reconsideration, SBA will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the size standard or standards that have been challenged, the Federal Register citation of the final rule, the assigned OHA docket number, and the date of the close of record. The document will further state that interested parties may contact OHA to intervene in the dispute pursuant to § 134.906 of this chapter.

(g) Where OHA grants a petition for reconsideration of a size standard that had been revised or modified, OHA will remand the case to SBA's Office of Size Standards for further action in accordance with § 134.916(a) of this chapter.

PART 134—RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING CASES BEFORE THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 3. The authority citation for part 134 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 504; 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 634(i), 637(a), 648(l), 656(i), and 687(c); E.O. 12549, 51 FR 6370, 3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189.

4. Amend § 134.101 by revising the definitions of “AA/OHA” and “Judge” and adding definitions for “Administrative Judge”, “Petitioner”, “Size Standard Petition”, and “Step One and Step Two” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 134.101 Definitions.

AA/OHA means the Assistant Administrator for OHA, who is also the Chief Hearing Officer.

Administrative Judge means a Hearing Officer, as described at 15 U.S.C. 634(i), appointed by OHA to adjudicate cases.

Judge means the Administrative Judge or Administrative Law Judge who decides an appeal or petition brought before OHA, or the AA/OHA when he or she acts as an Administrative Judge.

Petitioner means the person who initially files a petition before OHA.

Size Standard Petition means a petition for reconsideration of a revised, modified, or established size standard filed with OHA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(9) and subpart I of this part.

Step One and Step Two refer to the steps of the Employee Dispute Resolution Process, see § 134.801(a) for more information.

5. Amend § 134.102 by revising paragraphs (r) and (t) to read as follows:
§ 134.102 Jurisdiction of OHA.

(r) Appeals from SBA Employee Dispute Resolution Process cases (Employee Disputes) under Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 37 71 (available at http://www.sba.gov/tools/resourcelibrary/sops/index.html or through OHA's Web site http://www.sba.gov/oha) and subpart H of this part;

(t) Petitions for reconsideration of revised, modified, or established size standards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(9).

6. Amend § 134.201 by: a. Removing the word “and” in paragraph (b)(6); b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(7) as paragraph (b)(8); and c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(7).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 134.201 Scope of the rules in this subpart B.

(b) * * *

(7) For Size Standard Petitions, in subpart I of this part (§§ 134.901 through 134.918); and

7. Amend § 134.227 by: a. Removing the word “and” in paragraph (b)(3); b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5); and c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(4).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 134.227 Finality of decisions.

(b) * * *

(4) Size Standard Petitions; and

§ 134.801 [Amended]
8. Amend § 134.801 by: a. Adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b)(9); b. Removing “; and” at the end of paragraph (b)(10) and adding a period in its place; and c. Removing paragraph (b)(11).
9. Amend § 134.803 by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 134.803 Commencement of appeals from SBA Employee Dispute Resolution Process cases (Employee Disputes).

(a) An appeal from a Step Two decision must be commenced by filing an appeal petition within 15 calendar days from the date the Employee receives the Step Two decision.

(b) If the Step Two Official does not issue a decision within 15 calendar days of receiving the SBA Dispute Form from the Employee, the Employee must file his/her appeal petition at OHA no later than 15 calendar days from the date the Step Two decision was due.

10. Amend § 134.804 by: a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3); b. Adding the word “and” after the semicolon in paragraph (a)(5); c. Removing paragraph (a)(6); d. Redesignating paragraph (a)(7) as paragraph (a)(6); e. Revising paragraph (b)(1); f. Removing paragraph (c); and g. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 134.804 The appeal petition.

(a) * * *

(1) The completed SBA Dispute Form;

(2) A copy of the Step One and Step Two decisions, if any;

(3) Statement of why the Step Two decision (or Step One decision, if no Step Two decision was received), is alleged to be in error;

(b) * * *

(1) The Step Two Official;

§ 134.805 [Amended]
11. Amend § 134.805 in paragraph (d) by removing the words “U.S. Mail” and adding in their place the word “email” and removing the words “at his or her home address”.
§ 134.807 [Amended]
12. Amend § 134.807 as follows: a. By removing from paragraph (a), the words “a copy of the Dispute File” and adding in their place the words “any documentation, not already filed by the Employee, that SBA wishes OHA to consider”; b. By removing from paragraph (b), the words “15 days” and “45 days” and adding in both their places the words “15 calendar days”; and c. By removing from paragraph (c), the words “and the Dispute File are normally the last submissions” and by adding in their place the words “is normally the last submission”.
§ 134.808 [Amended]
13. Amend § 134.808(a) by removing the word “AMO's” and adding in its place the words “Step One or Step Two”. 14. Revise § 134.809 to read as follows:
§ 134.809 Review of initial decision.

(a) If the Chief Human Capital Officer, General Counsel for SBA, or Counsel to the Inspector General (IG) believes OHA's decision is contrary to law, rule, regulation, or SBA policy, that official may file a Petition for Review (PFR) of the decision with the Deputy Administrator (or IG for disputes by OIG employees) for a final SBA Decision. Only the Chief Human Capital Officer, General Counsel, or Counsel to the IG may file a PFR of an OHA decision; the Employee may not.

(b) To file a PFR, the official must request a complete copy of the dispute file from the Assistant Administrator for OHA (AA/OHA) within five calendar days of receiving the decision. The AA/OHA will provide a copy of the dispute file to the official, the Employee, and the Employee's representative within five calendar days of the official's request. The official's PFR is due no later than 15 calendar days from the date the official receives the dispute file. The PFR must specify the objections to OHA's decision.

15. Add subpart I to read as follows: Subpart I—Rules of Practice for Petitions for Reconsideration of Size Standards Sec. 134.901 Scope of the rules in this subpart. 134.902 Standing. 134.903 Commencement of cases. 134.904 Requirements for the Size Standard Petition. 134.905 Notice and order. 134.906 Intervention. 134.907 Filing and service. 134.908 The administrative record. 134.909 Standard of review. 134.910 Dismissal. 134.911 Response to the Size Standard Petition. 134.912 Discovery and oral hearings. 134.913 New evidence. 134.914 The decision. 134.915 Remand. 134.916 Effects of OHA's decision. 134.917 Equal Access to Justice Act. 134.918 Judicial review. Subpart I—Rules of Practice for Petitions for Reconsideration of Size Standards
§ 134.901 Scope of the rules in this subpart.

(a) The rules of practice in this subpart apply to Size Standard Petitions.

(b) Except where inconsistent with this subpart, the provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to Size Standard Petitions listed in paragraph (a) of this section.

§ 134.902 Standing.

(a) A Size Standard Petition may be filed with OHA by any person that is adversely affected by the Administrator's decision to revise, modify, or establish a size standard.

(b) A business entity is not adversely affected unless it conducts business in the industry associated with the size standard that is being challenged and:

(1) The business entity qualified as a small business concern before the size standard was revised or modified; or

(2) The business entity qualifies as a small business under the size standard as revised or modified.

§ 134.903 Commencement of cases.

(a) A Size Standard Petition must be filed at OHA not later than 30 calendar days after the publication in the Federal Register of the final rule that revises, modifies, or establishes the challenged size standard. An untimely Size Standard Petition will be dismissed.

(b) A Size Standard Petition filed in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking is premature and will be dismissed.

(c) A Size Standard Petition challenging a size standard that has not been revised, modified, or established through publication in the Federal Register will be dismissed.

§ 134.904 Requirements for the Size Standard Petition.

(a) Form. There is no required form for a Size Standard Petition. However, it must include the following information:

(1) A copy of the final rule published in the Federal Register to revise, modify, or establish a size standard, or an electronic link to the final rule;

(2) A full and specific statement as to which size standard(s) in the final rule the Petitioner is challenging and why the process that was used to revise, modify, or establish each challenged size standard is alleged to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, together with argument supporting such allegation;

(3) A copy of any comments the Petitioner submitted in response to the proposed notice of rulemaking that pertained to the size standard(s) in question, or a statement that no such comments were submitted; and

(4) The name, mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, email address, and signature of the Petitioner or its attorney.

(b) Multiple size standards. A Petitioner may challenge multiple size standards that were revised, modified, or established in the same final rule in a single Size Standard Petition, provided that the Petitioner demonstrates standing for each of the challenged size standards.

(c) Format. The formatting provisions of § 134.203(d) apply to Size Standard Petitions.

(d) Service. In addition to filing the Size Standard Petition at OHA, the Petitioner must serve a copy of the Size Standard Petition upon each of the following:

(1) SBA's Office of Size Standards, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; facsimile number (202) 205-6390; or [email protected]; and

(2) SBA's Office of General Counsel, Associate General Counsel for Procurement Law, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; facsimile number (202) 205-6873; or [email protected]

(e) Certificate of service. The Petitioner must attach to the Size Standard Petition a signed certificate of service meeting the requirements of § 134.204(d).

§ 134.905 Notice and order.

Upon receipt of a Size Standard Petition, OHA will assign the matter to a Judge in accordance with § 134.218. Unless it appears that the Size Standard Petition will be dismissed under § 134.910, the presiding Judge will issue a notice and order initiating the publication required by § 121.102(f) of this chapter; specifying a date for the Office of Size Standards to transmit to OHA a copy of the administrative record supporting the revision, modification, or establishment of the challenged size standard(s); and establishing a date for the close of record. Typically, the administrative record will be due seven calendar days after issuance of the notice and order, and the record will close 45 calendar days from the date of OHA's receipt of the Size Standard Petition.

§ 134.906 Intervention.

In accordance with § 134.210(b), interested persons with a direct stake in the outcome of the case may contact OHA to intervene in the proceeding and obtain a copy of the Size Standard Petition. In the event that the Size Standard Petition contains confidential information and the intervener is not a governmental entity, the Judge may require that the intervener's attorney be admitted to a protective order before obtaining a complete copy of the Size Standard Petition.

§ 134.907 Filing and service.

The provisions of § 134.204 apply to the filing and service of all pleadings and other submissions permitted under this subpart unless otherwise indicated in this subpart.

§ 134.908 The administrative record.

The Office of Size Standards will transmit to OHA a copy of the documentation and analysis supporting the revision, modification, or establishment of the challenged size standard by the date specified in the notice and order. The Chief, Office of Size Standards, will certify and authenticate that the administrative record, to the best of his or her knowledge, is complete and correct. The Petitioner and any interveners may, upon request, review the administrative record submitted to OHA. The administrative record will include the documentation and analysis supporting the revision, modification, or establishment of the challenged size standard.

§ 134.909 Standard of review.

The standard of review for deciding a Size Standard Petition is whether the process employed by the Administrator to revise, modify, or establish the size standard was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. OHA will not adjudicate arguments that a different size standard should have been selected. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof.

§ 134.910 Dismissal.

The Judge must dismiss the Size Standard Petition if:

(a) The Size Standard Petition does not, on its face, allege specific facts that if proven to be true, warrant remand of the size standard;

(b) The Petitioner is not adversely affected by the final rule revising, modifying, or establishing a size standard;

(c) The Size Standard Petition is untimely or premature pursuant to § 134.903 or is not otherwise filed in accordance with the requirements in subparts A and B of this part; or

(d) The matter has been decided or is the subject of adjudication before a court of competent jurisdiction over such matters.

§ 134.911 Response to the Size Standard Petition.

Although not required, any intervener may file and serve a response supporting or opposing the Size Standard Petition at any time prior to the close of record. SBA may intervene as of right at any time in any case until 15 days after the close of record, or the issuance of a decision, whichever comes first. The response must present argument.

§ 134.912 Discovery and oral hearings.

Discovery will not be permitted. Oral hearings will not be held unless the Judge determines that the dispute cannot be resolved except by the taking of live testimony and the confrontation of witnesses.

§ 134.913 New evidence.

Disputes under this subpart ordinarily will be decided based on the pleadings and the administrative record. The Judge may admit additional evidence upon a motion establishing good cause.

§ 134.914 The decision.

The Judge will issue his or her decision within 45 calendar days after close of record, as practicable. The Judge's decision is final and will not be reconsidered.

§ 134.915 Remand.

If OHA grants a Size Standard Petition, OHA will remand the matter to the Office of Size Standards for further analysis. Once remanded, OHA no longer has jurisdiction over the matter unless a new Size Standard Petition is filed as a result of a new final rule published in the Federal Register.

§ 134.916 Effects of OHA's decision.

(a) If OHA grants a Size Standard Petition of a modified or revised size standard, SBA will take appropriate action to rescind that size standard and to restore the one that was in effect before the one challenged in the Size Standard Petition. The restored size standard will remain in effect until SBA issues a new size standard. The OHA decision does not affect the validity of a concern's size representation made under the challenged size standard prior to the effective date of the SBA action rescinding that challenged size standard. Such a concern remains eligible for award as a small business, and the procuring agency may count the award towards its small business goals. If the procuring agency amends the solicitation and requires new self-certifications, those self-certifications will be based on the size standard in effect on the day those self-certifications are made. If the size standard in question was newly established, the challenged size standard remains in effect while SBA conducts its further analysis on remand.

(b) If OHA denies a Size Standard Petition, the size standard remains as published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

§ 134.917 Equal Access to Justice Act.

A prevailing Petitioner is not entitled to recover attorney's fees. Size Standard Petitions are not proceedings that are required to be conducted by an Administrative Law Judge under § 134.603.

§ 134.918 Judicial review.

The publication of a final rule in the Federal Register is considered the final agency action for purposes of seeking judicial review.

Dated: May 11, 2017. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-10471 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0290; Special Conditions No. 23-281-SC] Special Conditions: Pilatus Aircraft Limited Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47; Autothrust System AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special condition.

SUMMARY:

This special condition is for the Pilatus Aircraft Limited PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Innovative Solutions & Support, Inc., will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the use of an autothrust system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. This special condition contains the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This special condition is effective June 2, 2017 and is applicable beginning May 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeff Pretz, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816) 329-3239; facsimile (816) 329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On April 4, 2016, Innovative Solutions & Support applied for a supplemental type certificate for installation of an autothrust system in the PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes. The autothrust system is capable of setting forward thrust based on operation in either a pilot selectable torque or airspeed mode. Operation is limited to use only when above 400 feet above ground level (AGL) after takeoff, and requires disengagement at decision height (DH) or minimum decision altitude (MDA) on approach. The PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes are nine-passenger, two-crewmember, single-engine turbo-propeller airplanes with a 30,000-foot service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9,039 to 10,450 pounds—depending on airplane model. These airplanes are powered by a single Pratt & Whitney PT6A-67 engine.

The Innovative Solutions & Support, Inc., modification installs an autothrust system in the PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes to reduce pilot workload. The autothrust system is useable in all phases of flight from 400 feet AGL after takeoff down to the decision height on approach. The system includes a torque and airspeed mode along with monitors to prevent the system from exceeding critical engine or airspeed limits. A stepper motor provides throttle movement by acting through a linear actuator, which acts as a link between the stepper motor and throttle. The pilot can override the linear actuator by moving the throttle, which automatically disengages the autothrust system upon disagreement in the expected throttle position versus the actual position.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Innovative Solutions & Support must show that the PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A78EU. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in A78EU are as follows: 14 CFR part 23, amendments 23-1 through 23-42.1

1See Type Certification Data Sheet A78EU, revision 25, “Certification Basis” section for the PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 full certification basis. (http://rgl.faa.gov/.)

If the Administrator finds the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature(s), special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 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. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to the other model under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Autothrust system Discussion

As discussed in the summary section, this modification makes use of an autothrust system, which is a novel design for this type of airplane. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. Mandating additional requirements—developed in part—by adapting relevant portions of 14 CFR 25.1329, Flight guidance systems—applicable to autothrust systems—along with FAA experience with similar autothrust systems, mitigates the concerns associated with installation of the proposed autothrust system.

The FAA has previously issued this proposed special condition to part 23 turbojet airplanes, but not for turbo-propeller airplanes. The PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes are unique with respect to other turbo-propeller designs in that the basic design does not include a separate propeller control lever. Future use of these special conditions on other turbo-propeller designs will require evaluation of the engine and propeller control system to determine their appropriateness.

Discussion of Comments

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 23-17-01-SC for the Pilatus Aircraft Limited PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2017 (82 FR 17943).2 No comments were received, and the special condition is adopted as proposed.

2Refer to the U.S. Government Printing Office at https://www.thefederalregister.org/.

Applicability

As discussed above, this special condition is applicable to the PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes. Should Innovative Solutions & Support, Ltd. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A78EU to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to that model as well.

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the STC for the Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd., PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes is imminent, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the FAA finds that good cause exists to make this special condition effective upon issuance.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Condition

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special condition is issued as part of the type certification basis for Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes modified by Innovative Solutions & Support, Inc.

1. Autothrust System

In addition to the requirements of §§ 23.143, 23.1309, and 23.1329, the following apply:

(a) Quick disengagement controls for the autothrust function must be provided for each pilot. The autothrust quick disengagement controls must be located on the thrust control levers. Quick disengagement controls must be readily accessible to each pilot while operating the thrust control levers.

(b) The effects of a failure of the system to disengage the autothrust function when manually commanded by the pilot must be assessed in accordance with the requirements of § 23.1309.

(c) Engagement or switching of the flight guidance system, a mode, or a sensor may not cause the autothrust system to affect a transient response that alters the airplane's flight path any greater than a minor transient, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this special condition.

(d) Under normal conditions, the disengagement of any automatic control function of a flight guidance system may not cause a transient response of the airplane's flight path any greater than a minor transient.

(e) Under rare normal and non-normal conditions, disengagement of any automatic control function of a flight guidance system may not result in a transient any greater than a significant transient, as defined in paragraph (l)(2) of this special condition.

(f) The function and direction of motion of each command reference control, such as heading select or vertical speed, must be plainly indicated on—or adjacent to—each control if necessary to prevent inappropriate use or confusion.

(g) Under any condition of flight appropriate to its use, the flight guidance system may not produce hazardous loads on the airplane, nor create hazardous deviations in the flight path. This applies to both fault-free operation and in the event of a malfunction, and assumes that the pilot begins corrective action within a reasonable time.

(h) When the flight guidance system is in use, a means must be provided to avoid excursions beyond an acceptable margin from the speed range of the normal flight envelope. If the airplane experiences an excursion outside this range, a means must be provided to prevent the flight guidance system from providing guidance or control to an unsafe speed.

(i) The flight guidance system functions, controls, indications, and alerts must be designed to minimize flightcrew errors and confusion concerning the behavior and operation of the flight guidance system. A means must be provided to indicate the current mode of operation, including any armed modes, transitions, and reversions. Selector switch position is not an acceptable means of indication. The controls and indications must be grouped and presented in a logical and consistent manner. The indications must be visible to each pilot under all expected lighting conditions.

(j) Following disengagement of the autothrust function, a caution (visual and auditory) must be provided to each pilot.

(k) During autothrust operation, it must be possible for the flightcrew to move the thrust levers without requiring excessive force. The autothrust may not create a potential hazard when the flightcrew applies an override force to the thrust levers.

(l) For purposes of this section, a transient is a disturbance in the control or flight path of the airplane that is not consistent with response to flightcrew inputs or environmental conditions.

(1) A minor transient would not significantly reduce safety margins and would involve flightcrew actions that are well within their capabilities. A minor transient may involve a slight increase in flightcrew workload or some physical discomfort to passengers or cabin crew.

(2) A significant transient may lead to a significant reduction in safety margins, an increase in flightcrew workload, discomfort to the flightcrew, or physical distress to the passengers or cabin crew, possibly including non-fatal injuries. Significant transients do not require—in order to remain within or recover to the normal flight envelope—any of the following:

(i) Exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.

(ii) Forces applied by the pilot which are greater than those specified in § 23.143(c).

(iii) Accelerations or attitudes in the airplane that might result in further hazard to secured or non-secured occupants.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 24, 2017. Wes Ryan, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11347 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0010] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is amending and updating its special local regulations relating to recurring marine parades, regattas, and other events that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area of responsibility (AOR). This rule informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through the establishing of a special local regulation. Through this rulemaking the current list of recurring special local regulations is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. When these special local regulations are enforced, certain restrictions are placed on marine traffic in specified areas.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0010 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 Petty Officer James Robinson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (502) 779-5347, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley is establishing, amending, and updating its current list of recurring special local regulations codified under 33 CFR 100.801 in Table no. 1, for the COTP Ohio Valley zone.

On March 27, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update (82 FR 15174). During the comment period that ended April 26, 2017, no comments were received.

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. It would be impracticable to provide a full 30-days notice because this rule must be effective June 16, 2017.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard's authority for establishing a special local regulation is contained at 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Coast Guard is amending and updating the special local regulations under 33 CFR part 100 to include the most up to date list of recurring special local regulations for events held on or around navigable waters within the Sector Ohio Valley AOR. These events include marine parades, boat races, swim events, and others. The current list under 33 CFR 100.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing special local regulations, include new special local regulations expected to recur annually or biannually, and to remove special local regulations that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new special local regulation, amendment, or removal of an existing special local regulation creates unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This rulemaking reduces administrative overhead and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring special local regulations.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

No comments were received. No changes to the proposed rule have been made.

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.

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be minimal, and therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This rule establishes special local regulations limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR part 100 within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. The effect of this rulemaking will not be significant because these special local regulations are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the Federal Register, and/or Notices of Enforcement and thus will be able to plan around the special local regulations in advance. Deviation from the special local regulations established through this proposed rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners will also inform the community of these special local regulations so that they may plan accordingly for these short restrictions on transit. Vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative to enter the restricted areas.

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 received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation areas during periods of enforcement. The special local regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are limited in scope and will be in effect for short periods of time. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard COTP will issue maritime advisories widely available to waterway users. Deviation from the special local regulations established through this rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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.

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 the establishment of special local regulations related to marine event permits for marine parades, regattas, and other marine events. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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 100

Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1233.

2. In § 100.801, revise table 1 to read as follows:
§ 100.801 Annual Marine Events in the Eighth Coast Guard District. Table 1 of § 100.801—Ohio Valley Captain of the Port Zone Annual and Recurring Marine Events Date Event/sponsor Ohio Valley location Regulated area 1. The first Saturday in April University of Charleston Rowing/West Virginia Governor's Cup Regatta Charleston, WV Kanawha River, Mile 59.9-61.4 (West Virginia). 2. 1 day—During the last week of April or first week of May Kentucky Derby Festival/Belle of Louisville Operating Board/Great Steamboat Race Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 596.0-604.3 (Kentucky). 3. 1 day—Third or fourth weekend in May REV3/REV3 Triathlon Knoxville, TN Tennessee River, Mile 646.0-649.0 (Tennessee). 4. 1 day—Third weekend in May World Triathlon Corporation/IRONMAN 70.3 Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-466.0 (Tennessee). 5. 1 day—Second weekend in June Chattanooga Parks and Rec/Chattanooga River Rats Open Water Swim Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-469.0 (Tennessee). 6. 1 day—Third or fourth weekend in June Greater Morgantown Convention and Visitors Bureau/Mountaineer Triathlon Morgantown, WV Monongahela River, Mile 101.0-102.0 (West Virginia). 7. 2 days—First weekend of June Kentucky Drag Boat Association Pisgah Bay, KY Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). 8. 1 day—One of the first two weekends in August Green Umbrella/Ohio River Paddlefest Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 459.5-470.2 (Ohio and Kentucky). 9. 1 day—Fourth or fifth Sunday in September Green Umbrella/Great Ohio River Swim Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 469.8-470.2 (Ohio and Kentucky). 10. 1 day—One of the last two weekends in September Ohio River Open Water Swim Prospect, KY Ohio River, Mile 588.0-590.0 9 (Kentucky). 11. 2 days—Second or third weekend in September Louisville Dragon Boat Festival Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 603.0-603.5 (Kentucky). 12. 1 day—Third or fourth Sunday of July Tucson Racing/Cincinnati Triathlon Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 469.3-470.2 (Ohio). 13. 2 days—First weekend of July Kentucky Drag Boat Association Pisgah Bay, KY Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). 14. 1 day—Second weekend in July Bradley Dean/Renaissance Man Triathlon Florence, AL Tennessee River, Mile 255.0-257.0 (Alabama). 15. 3 days—One of the first two weekends in July Madison Regatta, Inc./Madison Regatta Madison, IN Ohio River, Mile 555.0-560.0 (Indiana). 16. 1 day—One of the last three weekends in June Louisville Race the Bridge Triathlon Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 601.5-603.0 (Kentucky). 17. 1 day—Fourth weekend in June Team Magic/Chattanooga Waterfront Triathlon Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-465.0 (Tennessee). 18. 1 day—Fourth weekend in July Team Magic/Music City Triathlon Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-192.0 (Tennessee). 19. 2 days—Last two weeks in July or first three weeks of August Friends of the Riverfront Inc./Pittsburgh Triathlon and Adventure Races Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-1.5 (Pennsylvania). 20. 3 days—First week of August EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta Pittsburgh, PA Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.5, Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.6, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-0.5 (Pennsylvania). 21. 2 days—First weekend of August Kentucky Drag Boat Association Pisgah Bay, KY Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). 22. 2 days—One of the last two weekends in September Captain Quarters Regatta Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 595.0-597.0 (Kentucky). 23. 2 days—Second or third weekend in October Norton Healthcare/Ironman Triathlon Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 601.5-604.5 (Kentucky). 24. 2 days—Third full weekend (Saturday and Sunday) in August Ohio County Tourism/Rising Sun Boat Races Rising Sun, IN Ohio River, Mile 504.0-508.0 (Indiana and Kentucky). 25. 1 day—Last weekend in August Tennessee Clean Water Network/Downtown Dragon Boat Races Knoxville, TN Tennessee River, Mile 647.0-649.0 (Tennessee). 26. 3 days—Third weekend in August Governors' Cup/UWP-IJSBA National Championships Charleston, WV Kanawha River, Mile 56.7-57.6 (West Virginia). 27. 2 days—Fourth weekend in July Herd Racing LLC/Huntington Classic Huntington, WV Ohio River, Mile 307.3-309.3 (West Virginia). 28. 2 days—Labor Day weekend Wheeling Vintage Race Boat Association Ohio/Wheeling Vintage Regatta Wheeling, WV Ohio River, Mile 090.4-091.5 (West Virginia). 29. 2 days—Weekend before Labor Day SUP3Rivers The Southside Outside Pittsburgh, PA Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-3.09 Allegheny River Mile 0.0-0.25 (Pennsylvania). 30. 1 day—Saturday before Labor Day Wheeling Dragon Boat Race Wheeling, WV Ohio River, Mile 90.4-91.5 (West Virginia). 31. 1 day—First or second weekend in September Cumberland River Compact/Cumberland River Dragon Boat Festival Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-192.0 (Tennessee). 32. 2 days—First or second weekend in September State Dock/Cumberland Poker Run Jamestown, KY Lake Cumberland (Kentucky). 33. 3 days—First or second weekend in September Sailing for a Cure Foundation/SFAC Fleur de Lis Regatta Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 601.0-604.0 (Kentucky). 34. 1 day—Last weekend in September World Triathlon Corporation/IRONMAN Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-467.0 (Tennessee). 35. 1 day—Second weekend in September City of Clarksville/Clarksville Riverfest Cardboard Boat Regatta Clarksville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 125.0-126.0 (Tennessee). 36. 2 days—First weekend of October Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-4.0 (Pennsylvania). 37. 1 day—First or second weekend in October Lookout Rowing Club/Chattanooga Head Race Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-467.0 (Tennessee). 38. 1 day—Third weekend in November TREC-RACE/Pangorge Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 444.0-455.0 (Tennessee). 39. 3 days—First weekend in November Atlanta Rowing Club/Head of the Hooch Rowing Regatta Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-467.0 (Tennessee). 40. One Saturday in June or July Paducah Summer Festival/Cross River Swim Paducah, KY Ohio River, Mile 934-936 (Kentucky). 41. 1 day—During the last weekend in May Louisville Metro Government/Mayor's Healthy Hometown Subway Fresh Fit, Hike, Bike and Paddle Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 602.0-603.5 (Kentucky). 42. 3 days—One of the last three weekends in June Hadi Shrine/Evansville Shriners Festival Evansville, IN Ohio River, Mile 791.0-795.0 (Indiana). 43. 1 day—Second or third Saturday in July Allegheny Mountain LMSC/Search for Monongy Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.6 (Pennsylvania). 44. 1 day—During the first week of July Evansville Freedom Celebration/4th of July Freedom Celebration Evansville, IN Ohio River, Mile 791.0-796.0 (Indiana). 45. 1 day—First weekend in September Louisville Metro Government/Mayor's Healthy Hometown Subway Fresh Fit, Hike, Bike and Paddle Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 602.0-603.5 (Kentucky). 46. 2 days—One of the last three weekends in July Dare to Care/KFC Mayor's Cup Paddle Sports Races/Voyageur Canoe World Championships Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 601.0-604.0 (Kentucky). 47. 3 days—Fourth weekend in August Kentucky Drag Boat Association/Thunder on the Green Livermore, KY Green River, Mile 70.0-71.5 (Kentucky). 48. 1 day—Fourth weekend in August Team Rocket Tri-Club/Rocketman Triathlon Huntsville, AL Tennessee River, Mile 333.0-334.5 (Alabama). 49. 3 days—One of the last three weekends in September or first weekend in October Hadi Shrine/Owensboro Air Show Owensboro, KY Ohio River, Mile 755.0-759.0 (Kentucky). 50. 1 day—First Sunday in August HealthyHuntington.org/St. Marys Tri-state Triathlon Huntington, WV Ohio River, Mile 307.3-308.3 (West Virginia). 51. 2 days—First Weekend in August Buckeye Outboard Association/Portsmouth Challenge Portsmouth, OH Ohio River, Mile 355.3-356.7 (Ohio). 52. 1 day—Sunday before Labor Day Cincinnati Bell, WEBN, and Proctor and Gamble/Riverfest Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 464.0-476.0 (Kentucky and Ohio) and Licking River Mile 0.0-3.0 (Kentucky). 53. Second Sunday in September Ohio River Sternwheel Festival Committee Sternwheel race reenactment Marietta, OH Ohio River, Mile 170.5-172.5 (Ohio). 54. Second Saturday in September Parkesburg Paddle Fest Parkersburg, WV Ohio River, Mile 184.3-188 (West Virginia). 55. Three days during the fourth weekend in September New Martinsville Records and Regatta Challenge Committee New Martinsville, WV Ohio River, Mile 128-129 (West Virginia). 56. First weekend in July Eddyville Creek Marina/Thunder Over Eddy Bay Eddyville, KY Cumberland River, Mile 46.0-47.0 (Kentucky). 57. First or second weekend of July Prizer Point Marina/4th of July Celebration Cadiz, KY Cumberland River, Mile 54.0-55.09 (Kentucky). 58. 2 days—Last weekend in May or first weekend in June Visit Knoxville/Racing on the Tennessee Knoxville, TN Tennessee River, Mile 647.0-648.0 (Tennessee). 59. 1 day—First or second weekend in August Riverbluff Triathlon Ashland City, TN Cumberland River, Mile 157.0-159.0 (Tennessee). 60. 2 days—First weekend in August POWERBOAT NATIONALS—Ravenswood Regatta Ravenswood, WV Ohio River, Mile 220.5-221.5 (West Virginia). 61. 3 days—One of the last three weekends in June Lawrenceburg Regatta/Whiskey City Regatta Lawrenceburg, IN Ohio River, Mile 492.0-496.0 (Indiana). 62. 2 days—One of the last three weekends in September Madison Vintage Thunder Madison, IN Ohio River, Mile 557.5-558.5 (Indiana). 63. 1 day—Fourth weekend in October Chattajack Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.7-464.5 (Tennessee). 64. 1 day—Third weekend in March Vanderbilt Invite Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 189.0-192.0 (Tennessee). 65. 2 days—Last weekend in September Music City Head Race Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.5-195.0 (Tennessee). 66. 1 day—Last weekend in July Music City SUP Race Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-191.5 (Tennessee). 67. 3 days—Third weekend in June Thunder on the Cumberland Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.5-194.0 (Tennessee). 68. 3 days—Second weekend in May ACRA Henley Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 189.0-193.0 (Tennessee). 69. 2 days—Third weekend in August Kittanning Riverbration Boat Races Kittanning, PA Allegheny River, Mile 44.0-45.5 (Pennsylvania). 70. 2 days—Third Friday and Saturday in April Thunder Over Louisville Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 598.0-603.0 (Kentucky). 71. 3 days—One of the first two weekends in September Evansville HydroFest Evansville, IN Ohio River, Mile 791.8.0-793.0.
Dated: 25 May 2017. M.B. Zamperini, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2017-11473 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0349] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Detroit Symphony Orchestra Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 600-foot radius of a portion of Lake St. Clair, Grosse Point, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra Fireworks. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit.

DATES:

This temporary final rule is effective from 10:15 p.m. on July 7, 2017, through 10:45 p.m. on July 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0349 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 temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 7 and from 10:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 8, 2017 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 600-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 10:15 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 7 and July 8, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair, Grosse Point Shores, MI, within a 600-foot radius of position 42°27.25′ N., 082°51.8′ W. (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

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. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.” This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Lake St. Clair from 10:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 7 and from 10:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 8, 2017. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding 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 safety zone lasting less than thirty minutes that will prohibit entry within 600-feet firework launch site. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T09-0349 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0349 Safety Zone; Detroit Symphony Orchestra Fireworks, Lake St. Clair; Grosse Pointe Shores, MI.

(a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI, within a 600-foot radius of position 42°27.25′ N., 082°51.8′ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) will be enforced from 10:15 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 7 and from 10:15 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 8, 2017.

(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his on-scene representative.

(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313—568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.

Dated: May 22, 2017. Scott B. LeMasters, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2017-11427 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0401] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; East River and Buttermilk Channel, Brooklyn, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Brooklyn half of the East River, 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 safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with a dielectric oil spill response and shoreside repair operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port New York.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from June 2, 2017 through 5 p.m. on July 14, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 4 p.m. on May 8, 2017 June 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0401 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. 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 PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be 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 and shoreside repair efforts.

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 COTP has determined that the emergency pollution response activities pose hazards to the boating public within the Brooklyn, NY half of the East River and Buttermilk Channel. The COTP has determined that this rule is necessary to protect the public from these hazards.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 4 p.m. on May 8, 2017 through 5 p.m. on July 14, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Brooklyn, NY half of the East River and Buttermilk Channel. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the dielectric fluid is being recovered and necessary shoreside repair operations are ongoing. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter the safety zone unless obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 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 safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the East River and Buttermilk Channel for approximately two months. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone if the response activities are completed in less than two months.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any recreational 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 the establishment of a safety zone for up to two months. Therefore, it is 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 is 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.T01-0401 to read as follows:
§ 165.T01-0401 Safety Zone; East River and Buttermilk Channel, NY.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Brooklyn 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 Buttermilk Channel, north of the Buttermilk Channel Entrance Lighted Gong Buoy 1 (LLNR 36985).

(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 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 safety zone is effective and will be enforced from 4 p.m. on May 8, 2017 through 5 p.m. on July 14, 2017.

(d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23, as well as the following regulations, apply.

(2) During periods of enforcement, no vessel shall enter the safety zone unless permitted by the COTP or a designated representative. Any person or vessel allowed to enter the safety zone must comply with all orders and directions from the COTP or a COTP's designated representative while said person or vessel is within the safety zone.

(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 8, 2017. Michael H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2017-11463 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0451] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Vidalia, LA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is extending an established safety zone for emergency purposes for all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR), extending the entire width from mile 311.0 to mile 317.0. This emergency safety zone is needed to protect persons, property, and flood control infrastructure from the potential safety hazards associated with vessels underway transiting this area with dangerously high water levels. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 5 p.m. on May 19, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on June 2, 2017, or until the water levels have lowered to a less dangerous level, whichever occurs earlier. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 19, 2017 through June 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0451 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 LT Ryan C. Thomas, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-4825, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Lower Mississippi River DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the water levels have risen rapidly to dangerous levels and immediate action is needed to protect persons, and property during response efforts. Completing the full NPRM process is impracticable because we must establish this safety zone by May 19, 2017 and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed during the emergency operations in response to the higher than normal water levels on May 19, 2017.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Coast Guard received notification from the US Army Corps of Engineers reporting high water levels are present in the vicinity of mile marker (MM) 315.0 on the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) near the Old River Control structures. As a result, danger of collision with the structures exists and is likely. The COTP Lower Mississippi River is establishing this safety zone effective from 5 p.m. May 19, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. June 2, 2017 or until the water levels have lowered to a less dangerous level, whichever occurs earlier. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, flood infrastructure, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the high water levels are present.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the LMR from mile 311.0 to mile 317.0, extending the entire width of the river, from 5 p.m. May 19, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on June 2, 2017 or until the water levels have lowered to a less dangerous level, whichever occurs earlier. Any vessel desiring to enter this safety zone must first obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lower Mississippi River (COTP). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assist vessels present in the vicinity of the Old River Control Structure (WUG-424) have been delegated the authority to permit entry into this safety zone.

Entry into this zone is prohibited unless permission has been granted by the COTP or a designated representative. Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) will provide any changes in the schedule for this safety zone. Requests to enter the zone will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 1-901-521-4804 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

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, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This emergency safety zone will restrict navigation on the Mississippi River from mile 311.0 to 317.0 near Vidalia, Louisiana for 14 days. Vessels will be allowed to transit the zone with direction from the COTP or its designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding 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 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 an emergency safety zone that will prohibit entry into the zone unless permission has been granted by the COTP or a designated representative on the Mississippi River mile 311.0 to mile 317.0. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Temporary § 165.T08-0451 is added to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0451 Safety Zone; Mississippi River, Vidalia, LA.

(a) Location. The following area is an emergency safety zone: All navigable waters of the Mississippi River between mile 311.0 and mile 317.0, extending the entire width of the river.

(b) Enforcement date. This rule is effective from 5 p.m. on May 19, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on June 2, 2017, or until the water levels have lowered to a less dangerous level, whichever occurs earlier. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 19, 2017 through June 2, 2017.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lower Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.

(2) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assist vessels present in the vicinity of the Old River Control Structures are designated representatives and may permit entry into this safety zone. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or Channel 13.

(d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: May 19, 2017. T.J. Wendt, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lower Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2017-11462 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0372] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Motor City Mile; Detroit River; Detroit, MI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for certain waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI. This action is necessary and is intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters to be used for a swimming event immediately prior to, during, and immediately after this event. This regulation requires vessels to maintain a minimum speed for safe navigation and maneuvering.

DATES:

This temporary final rule is effective from 7 a.m. until 12 p.m. on July 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0372 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 temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section COTP Captain of the Port U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this swimming event until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

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

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The COTP has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a youth swimming event along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a Special Local Regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7 a.m. until 12 p.m. on July 6, 2017. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Belle Isle Beach between the following two lines: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.517′ N., 082°59.159′ W. to 42°20.705′ N., 082°59.233′ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.754′ N., 082°58.681′ W. to 42° 20.997′ N., 082°58.846″ W. (NAD 83).

An on-scene representative of the COTP or event sponsor representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560.

The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. July 6, 2017. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

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 special local regulation 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 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 special local regulation lasting nine hours that will limit entry to a designated area. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, and paragraph 34(h) of the Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 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. 1233.

2. Add § 165.T09-0372 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0372 Special local regulation; Motor City Mile; Detroit River; Detroit, MI.

(a) Location. A regulated area is established to encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Belle Isle Beach between the following two lines: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.517′ N., 082°59.159′ W. to 42°20.705′ N., 082°59.233′ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.754′ N., 082°58.681′ W. to 42°20.997′ N., 082°58.846″ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. This section is effective and will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 12 p.m. on July 6, 2017.

(c) Regulations.

(1) Vessels transiting through the regulated area are to maintain the minimum speeds for safe navigation.

(2) Vessel operators desiring to operate in the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560. Vessel operators given permission to operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the COTP Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the special local regulation. The COTP Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Detroit or his on-scene representative.

Dated: May 26, 2017. Scott B. Lemasters, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2017-11465 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583; FRL-9962-27-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On July 18, 2016, the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is approving the State's maintenance plan, including the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2014 and 2030 for the Area, and redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for the Atlanta Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity.

DATES:

This rule will be effective June 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jane Spann, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Spann can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for Final Actions

Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The Atlanta Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified as a marginal nonattainment area.1 On July 14, 2016, EPA issued a determination that the Area had attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (81 FR 45419). On July 18, 2016, Georgia requested that EPA redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the Atlanta Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94283), EPA proposed to approve the maintenance plan, including the 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC, and incorporate the plan into the Georgia SIP and to redesignate the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In that notice, EPA also notified the public of the status of the Agency's adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Atlanta Area. The details of Georgia's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM.

1 The Atlanta Area consists of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding and Rockdale Counties in Georgia.

II. Response to Comments

EPA received one set of comments on its December 23, 2016, proposed rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA received adverse comments from the Sierra Club (“Commenter”). These comments are provided in the docket for this final action. See Docket number EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583. A summary of the adverse comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The Commenter contends that EPA may not approve Georgia's request to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment because, according to the Commenter, the Atlanta Area failed to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commenter believes that the Area failed to attain this NAAQS “by law” because the Cobb County ozone monitor did not meet the 75 percent data completeness requirement for 2014 or the 90 percent data completeness requirement for the 2013-2015 period.

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the Area has not attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA issued a final determination of attainment on July 14, 2016, based on the same 2013-2015 air quality data it is using as the basis of this redesignation action. See 81 FR 45419. EPA took notice and comment on its determination of attainment and the Commenter could have raised its concern to the Agency regarding data from the Kennesaw National Guard monitor (also known as the Cobb County monitor) at that time, but failed to do so. In any case, EPA does not find reason to alter its conclusion that the Area has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on concerns raised in the comment, and the most recent available data and information continues to support this finding. With regard to the Commenter's concern regarding the 2014 ozone season data from the Kennesaw National Guard monitor, EPA's technical analysis, available in a technical support document located in the docket for this rulemaking, demonstrates that the 2013-2015 design value would not have violated the standard even assuming the most conservative estimates for the missing data from that monitor.

As described in greater detail in the technical support document, in EPA's technical judgment, the Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In making its determination, EPA evaluated all valid certified monitoring data collected during 2013-2015 by monitors in or near the nonattainment area.2 EPA also conducted the additional technical analysis described in the technical support document for the Kennesaw National Guard monitor, which did not collect complete data during 2014. The results of this technical analysis indicate that even under the most conservative estimates, it is very unlikely that the monitor would have violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb.

2 EPA retrieved data for the monitors in the Atlanta Area and the Georgia Station CASTNET monitoring site in Pike County near the Atlanta Area.

Following publication of the proposed redesignation, Georgia certified its 2016 data for the Atlanta Area which shows that the Area continues to attain the NAAQS with a 2014-2016 design value of 75 ppb.3 Incomplete data for the Kennesaw National Guard monitor in 2014 does not affect this conclusion because, as discussed above, EPA conducted an analysis and has concluded that it is very unlikely that the monitor would have violated the NAAQS if it had collected completed data.4

3 The air quality data is located at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.

4 The fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average value for 2016 at the Kennesaw National Guard monitor is 70 ppb.

Comment 2: The Commenter argues that the interstate transport provision at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is an applicable requirement for the purposes of redesignation. Therefore, the Commenter does not believe that EPA can redesignate a nonattainment area to attainment unless the state has submitted, and EPA has approved, a SIP revision that contains adequate provisions prohibiting any source located in the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any NAAQS. Because Georgia did not submit a SIP revision satisfying the good neighbor provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Commenter contends that Georgia has not met all applicable requirements for redesignation of the Area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) (requiring the State to have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D) and section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) (requiring the State to have a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k)).

Response 2: As discussed in the NPRM and in numerous other redesignation actions, EPA has long interpreted the section 110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport requirements as not applicable for the purposes of redesignation. See, e.g., 81 FR 94283 (December 23, 2016), 78 FR 43096 (July 19, 2013), 76 FR 79579 (December 22, 2011), 74 FR 53198 (October 16, 2009), 72 FR 56312 (October 3, 2007). The Agency has consistently distinguished the section 110 and part D requirements that apply regardless of an area's attainment designation—such as 110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport requirements, 176(c) conformity requirements, section 184 ozone transport region measures, and section 211(m) oxygenated fuels requirements—from those requirements in section 110 and part D that are linked to the nonattainment designation of an area and thus no longer need be complied with upon redesignation to attainment status. If a requirement applies to an area regardless of whether its designation is nonattainment, maintenance, or attainment, and thus other parts of the CAA will continue to obligate the area to meet the requirement after redesignation, EPA has interpreted the requirement as not “applicable” for purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) or (v). See, e.g., 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001), 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997), 61 FR 53174 (October 10, 1996), 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996), 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). Courts have upheld EPA's authority to interpret what constitutes an “applicable” requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E), and have deferred to EPA's interpretation that requirements that continue to apply after a redesignation are not “applicable” for purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001).

We note that EPA has acted consistently with this interpretation by issuing a number of actions outside the context of area redesignations to address CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'s transport provision. On October 26, 2016, EPA issued a final rulemaking (CSAPR Update) updating the regional NOx ozone season trading program established under the original 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. See 81 FR 74504. As described in more detail in the CSAPR Update, EPA conducted air quality modeling and concluded that Georgia did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Therefore, even though, as the Commenter points out, EPA did issue a finding of failure to submit a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) transport SIP to Georgia, the Agency later determined that the State had no substantive obligation to reduce its emissions to meet its transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

Comment 3: The Commenter claims that neither Georgia nor EPA have sufficiently shown that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions rather than to temporary fluctuations in weather or the economy, from decreased electricity production in the Area, or from impermanent and unenforceable measures. The Commenter believes that EPA did nothing more than cite to and summarize certain applicable pollutant control regulations and that EPA must estimate the percent reduction achieved from each of the cited measures “in order to clearly show that the air quality improvements are indeed the result of implemented permanent and enforceable controls.” The Commenter also states that the Utility Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS), listed in the section of the NPRM discussing permanent and enforceable measures, cannot have improved air quality during the relevant time period and that MATS does not have any relevance for ozone.

Response 3: EPA does not agree with the Commenter that the Agency has not properly determined that the Area's attainment is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions, as required by CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). EPA's approach in this action is consistent with its long-standing interpretation that to satisfy that provision, as set forth in the Calcagni Memorandum cited by the Commenter, EPA must show that the improvement in air quality necessary for an area to attain the relevant NAAQS is reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.5 As recently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, EPA's approach to demonstrating that section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been met is a reasonable and appropriate method of meeting the CAA's requirements. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014). As noted by the court, it is not necessary for EPA to “prove causation to an absolute certainty,” and the Agency is entitled to deference when using its “experience, expertise, and professional judgment” in determining whether the improvement in air quality is reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable measures. See Sierra Club, 774 F.3d at 395-96 (agreeing with EPA that its approach sufficed, and that an “elaborate analytical exercise is not required by the CAA”). In this case, the Commenter claims that EPA's demonstration is inadequate and charges that the Agency must estimate the percent reduction achieved from each of the permanent and enforceable measures in order for the Agency to redesignate an area. In fact, for the measures that were primarily responsible for the improvement in ozone concentrations in the Area, EPA did estimate the percentage reduction in emissions. The majority of ozone precursor emissions in the Area are generated by mobile sources, and the vast majority of emission reductions in the Area are similarly associated with the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures identified in the NPRM.6

5 Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, to EPA regional air directors re: Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment (September 4, 1992), p.4.

6 In 2011, mobile sources accounted for approximately 84 percent of NOX emissions and 53 percent of VOC emissions in the Area. See 80 FR 48036 (August 11, 2015). In 2014, mobile sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of NOX emissions and 51 percent of VOC emissions. See 81 FR 94283. The comparison of the 2011 and 2014 emissions inventories in Table 2, below, shows that mobile source NOX emissions decreased by approximately 60 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 72 percent of the total NOX emissions reductions) and mobile source VOC emissions decreased by approximately 34 tpsd (equating to 68 percent of the total VOC emissions reductions).

Consistent with the Calcagni Memorandum, Georgia and EPA also took steps in the analysis, as outlined in the NPRM, to ensure that the improvement in air quality was not due to temporary weather conditions. Georgia provided and EPA evaluated ozone season temperature and precipitation data for the Area from 1930 through 2015. See 81 FR 94288. This data shows that the average temperature and precipitation in 2013 fluctuates around the average meteorological conditions; the years 2014 and 2015 were hotter than the 1930-2000 average temperature; and precipitation in 2014 was less than the 1930-2000 average. Therefore, EPA proposed to determine that the improvement in ozone air quality was not the result of unusually favorable weather conditions. The Commenter did not provide any climatological data to refute this proposed determination. Although the Commenter claims that EPA and the State must also demonstrate that the improvement in air quality was not due to the economy or decreased electricity production, EPA does not have any information indicating that the improvement was due to these factors and the Commenter has not provided any such information.

Consistent with EPA's long-standing practice and policy, a comparison of nonattainment period emissions with attainment period emissions is relevant in demonstrating permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. EPA has evaluated the ozone precursor emissions data in the Area and found that there were significant reductions in these emissions in multiple source categories from 2011 (a nonattainment year) to 2014 (an attainment year). During this time period, the emissions data show that non-road NOX and VOC emissions decreased, point source NOX emissions decreased, and mobile NOX and VOC emissions decreased. During this time period, mobile source emissions provided the greatest reductions, with NOX emissions decreasing by approximately 60 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 72 percent of the total NOX emissions reductions) and mobile source VOC emissions decreased by approximately 34 tpsd (equating to 68 percent of the total VOC emissions reductions). It is not necessary for every change in emissions between the nonattainment year and the attainment year to be permanent and enforceable. Rather, as discussed above, the CAA requires that improvement in air quality necessary for an area to attain the relevant NAAQS must be reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable emission reductions in emissions.

7 For 2011, Georgia also reported 3.45 tpsd of biogenic emissions not included in this total; for 2014, the area source emissions total includes 0.01 tons per summer day of wild and prescribed fires.

Table 1—NOX Emissions for the Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area [Tons per summer day] 7 Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total 2011 54.63 4.63 214.98 91.92 366.16 2014 31.36 4.88 170.15 76.69 283.08 Table 2—VOC Emissions for the Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area [Tons per summer day] 8 Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total 2011 10.36 137.06 108.62 60.56 316.60 2014 11.24 119.88 81.76 53.38 266.26

The State calculated the on-road and non-road mobile source emissions summarized in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-approved models and procedures that account for fleet turnover, increased population, and the federal mobile source measures identified as permanent and enforceable measures in the NPRM such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards, the large non-road diesel engines rule,9 heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards,10 medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards,11 non-road spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards,12 and the national program for GHG emissions and fuel economy standards.13 14 These mobile source measures have resulted in, and continue to result in, large reductions in NOX emissions over time due to fleet turnover (i.e., the replacement of older vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet the standards). For example, implementation of the Tier 2 standards began in 2004, and as newer, cleaner cars enter the national fleet, these standards continue to significantly reduce NOX emissions. As discussed in the NPRM, EPA expects that these standards will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles by approximately 74 percent by 2030, translating to nearly 3 million tons annually by 2030.15

8 For 2011, Georgia also reported 914.88 tpsd of biogenic emissions that are not included in this total; for 2014, the area source emissions total includes 0.02 tpsd of wild and prescribed fires.

9 EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 percent nationwide.

10 EPA projects a 2.6 million ton reduction in NOX emissions by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards. 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001).

11 When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is expected to reduce NOX emissions from the covered vehicles by 20 percent.

12 When fully implemented, the standards will result in an 80 percent reduction in NOX by 2020.

13 Georgia used EPA's MOVES2010b and MOVES2014a model to calculate on-road emissions factors and used the NEI2011 and MOVES2014a for non-road emissions.

14 Georgia used the interagency consultation process required by 40 CFR part 93 (known as the Transportation Conformity Rule) which requires EPA, the United States Department of Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, state departments of transportation, and State and local air quality agencies to work together to develop applicable implementation plans. The on-road emissions were generated by an aggregate of the vehicle activity (generated from the travel demand model) on individual roadways multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor from MOVES2014. The assumptions which are included in the travel demand model, such as population, were reviewed through the interagency consultation process.

15 EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420-F-99-051 (December 1999), available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissions-passenger-cars-and.

Regarding MATS, EPA acknowledges that it inadvertently included this rule as a permanent and enforceable measure. As the Commenter correctly notes, MATS did not result in permanent and enforceable emissions reductions in the Area during the relevant time period because the State extended the compliance date for the relevant sources in the Area to April 2016.

The SIP-approved state measures resulting in permanent and enforceable emission reductions include Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy)—Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides, Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(jjj)—NOX from EGUs, Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll)—NOX from Fuel Burning Equipment, Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn)—NOX from Stationary Gas Turbines, Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr)—NOX from Small Fuel Burning Equipment, and Georgia Rule Chapter 391-3-20—Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance. The federal measures resulting in permanent and enforceable emission reductions include the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)/Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards, large non-road diesel engines rule, medium and heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption and GHG standards, heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards, nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards, national program for GHG emissions and fuel economy standards, and Boiler and Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

The inadvertent inclusion of the MATS Rule in the NPRM does not affect EPA's conclusion that the improvement in ozone air quality is reasonably attributable to the remaining measures identified in the NPRM. Although MATS did not result in permanent and enforceable reductions until April 2016, it is expected to result in further reductions in NOx emissions during the maintenance period.16

16See Regulatory Impact Analysis for Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, EPA-452/R-11-011/December 2011. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/matsriafinal.pdf.

Comment 4: The Commenter asserts that Georgia's maintenance plan is inadequate to ensure maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area over the next ten years. The specific arguments offered by the Commenter in support of its assertion are summarized in Comments 4(a) through 4(c), below.

Comment 4a: The Commenter states that neither Georgia nor EPA can be sure that the attainment inventory for 2014, the attainment year used by the State to demonstrate maintenance throughout the first 10-year maintenance period, is sufficient to attain the standard because “2014 is the year that the ozone season monitoring data for the Cobb County monitor failed to meet either of the statutory completeness requirements for an attainment designation.”

Response 4a: As discussed above in response to Comment 1, EPA determined that the Area is attaining the standard and has conducted technical analyses to support this determination. For NAAQS based on a three-year averaging period, EPA allows states to develop attainment emissions inventories in their section 175A maintenance plans using any of the three years on which an attainment determination is based. See, e.g., 80 FR 54577 (July 30, 2015), 79 FR 16734 (March 26, 2014), 78 FR 72040 (December 2, 2013), 78 FR 38648 (June 27, 2013). This approach is consistent with the guidance provided to states in preparing attainment inventories for 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, to Air Division Directors, re: Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act (May 20, 2005), p. 4. Therefore, it is appropriate to use 2014 as the attainment year in the maintenance demonstration for the Atlanta Area. Also, the Commenter has not raised any issues regarding the accuracy of the emissions inventory that was developed for 2014.

Comment 4b: The Commenter claims that the implementation schedules in the maintenance plan for the Tier I and Tier II contingency measures, allowing for up to 24 months for implementation, are “unacceptably long and fail to satisfy the prompt response timing required by CAA Section 175A” to correct “potential monitored violations.” The Commenter believes that Georgia should commit to selecting and implementing Tier I and Tier II contingency measures within 12 months of a trigger. The Commenter also states that “[t]his issue is compounded by the fact that Georgia's most recent ozone monitoring data from 2016 demonstrate that a number of the Atlanta Area monitors continues to record annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations above the NAAQS.”

Response 4b: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the maintenance plan's implementation schedules for contingency measures fail to satisfy the “prompt response” requirement in CAA section 175A(d). This section of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. Thus, Congress gave EPA discretion to evaluate and determine the contingency measures that EPA “deems necessary” to assure that the state will promptly correct any subsequent violation.

Section 175A does not establish any deadlines for implementation of contingency measures after redesignation to attainment. It also provides far more latitude than does section 172(c)(9), which applies to a different set of contingency measures applicable to nonattainment areas. Section 172(c)(9) contingency measures must “take effect . . . without further action by the State or [EPA].” By contrast, section 175A(d) allows EPA to take into account the need of a state to assess, adopt, and implement contingency measures if and when a violation occurs after an area's redesignation to attainment. As noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527, 540 (6th Cir. 2004), EPA “has been granted broad discretion by Congress in determining what is `necessary to assure' prompt correction” under section 175A, and “no pre-determined schedule for adoption of the measures is necessary in each specific case.” In making this determination, EPA accounts for the time that is required for states to analyze data and address the causes and appropriate means of remedying a violation. EPA also considers the time required to adopt and implement appropriate measures in assessing what “promptly” means in this context.

In the case of the Atlanta Area, EPA believes that the contingency measures set forth in the submittal, combined with the State's commitment to implement contingency measures as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 24 months of a trigger, provide assurance that the State will promptly correct a future violation. Given the uncertainty regarding the nature of the contingency measures required to address a violation, the State may need up to 24 months to enact new statutes; develop new or modified regulations and complete notice and comment rulemaking; or take actions authorized by current state law that require the purchase and installation of equipment (e.g., diesel retrofits) or the development and implementation of new programs. In addition, EPA has previously approved implementation of contingency measures within 24 months of a violation to comply with the requirements of section 175A in several instances. See, e.g., 81 FR 76891 (November 4, 2016), 80 FR 61775 (October 14, 2015), 79 FR 67120 (November 12, 2014), 78 FR 44494 (July 24, 2013), 77 FR 34819 (June 12, 2012), 76 FR 59512 (Sept. 27, 2011), 75 FR 2091 (January 14, 2010). EPA also notes that the Commenter did not provide any rationale for concluding that a 12-month implementation period is necessary to satisfy section 175A and that the Tier I response is not subject to section 175A(d) because it is triggered before any violation has occurred.

The Commenter's statement that “this issue is compounded by” fourth-highest daily maximum 2016 ozone concentrations “above the NAAQS” is unclear. In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the determination as to whether the Area meets the NAAQS is based on the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest readings at a monitor, not on a monitor's fourth-highest ozone value in a single year. No monitored value in a single year can itself be a violation. The Area has attained the NAAQS, as discussed in the response to Comment 1, and met the other criteria necessary for redesignation. Once the redesignation is effective, the State will follow its maintenance plan and implement contingency measures pursuant to that plan. If Georgia observes a fourth highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater at a single monitor for which the previous ozone season had a fourth highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater, a Tier 1 trigger will be activated and the State will take action consistent with the Tier I procedure described in the maintenance plan.

Comment 4c: The Commenter believes that the maintenance plan is “likely inadequate” to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because, according to the Commenter, the assumptions underlying Georgia's maintenance determination “likely underestimate the level of ozone reductions actually required to maintain the standard in light of increasingly warming temperatures to come.”

Response 4c: EPA does not agree that the maintenance plan is inadequate because it does not specifically consider the impacts of climate change on future ozone concentrations. EPA believes that the broad range of potential future climate outcomes and variability of projected response to these outcomes limits EPA's ability to develop specific actionable SIP policies for any specific location. Additionally, EPA generally believes that the natural variability in meteorological patterns will have a larger influence on ozone concentrations than climate influences over the relatively short-term SIP maintenance period. Thus, EPA believes it is appropriate to rely upon the existing technical guidance and applicable CAA provisions to ensure that ozone maintenance areas do not violate the NAAQS.

III. Final Action

EPA is taking two separate, but related, final actions. First, EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area, including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2030, and incorporating it into the Georgia SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the MVEBs meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5).

Second, EPA is approving Georgia's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. Approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of Bartow County, Cherokee County, Clayton County, Cobb County, Coweta County, DeKalb County, Douglas County, Fayette County, Forsyth County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Henry County, Newton County, Paulding County, and Rockdale County in the Atlanta Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81.

EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-established NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Atlanta Area adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity. Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).

EPA has determined that these actions are effective immediately upon publication under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Section 553(d)(1) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication if a substantive rule “relieves a restriction.” These actions qualify for the exception under section 553(d)(1) because they relieve the State of various requirements for the Area. Furthermore, section 553(d)(3) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” EPA finds good cause to make these actions effective immediately pursuant to section 553(d)(3) because they do not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the actions take effect.

IV. 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 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, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions:

• Are not significant regulatory actions 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);

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

• Are 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.);

• Do 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);

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

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

• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Are 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

• Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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 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.

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 August 1, 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 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

Dated: April 27, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

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.

Subpart L—Georgia 2. In § 52.570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Area” at the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.570 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of
  • nonregulatory
  • SIP provision
  • Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date/
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval
  • date
  • Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Area Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding and Rockdale Counties 7/18/2016 6/2/2017, [insert Federal Register citation]
    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    4. In § 81.311, the table entitled “Georgia—2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)” is amended by revising the entry for “Atlanta, GA: 2” to read as follows:
    § 81.311 Georgia. Georgia—2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation Date 1 Type Classification Date 1 Type Atlanta, GA: 2 6/2/2017 Attainment Bartow County Attainment Cherokee County Attainment Clayton County Attainment Cobb County Attainment Coweta County Attainment DeKalb County Attainment Douglas County Attainment Fayette County Attainment Forsyth County Attainment Fulton County Attainment Gwinnett County Attainment Henry County Attainment Newton County Attainment Paulding County Attainment Rockdale County Attainment *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 2 Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10934 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 171 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183; FRL-9963-34] Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Delay of Effective Date AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; delay of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    With this action, EPA is delaying the effective date for the final rule issued in the Federal Register on January 4, 2017, from June 5, 2017 to May 22, 2018. That rule addressed revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule.

    DATES:

    The effective date of the rule amending 40 CFR part 171 that published at 82 FR 952, January 4, 2017, delayed at 82 FR 8499, January 26, 2017, and 82 FR 14324, March 20, 2017, is further delayed until May 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Keaney, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5557; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information

    On January 4, 2017, EPA published a final rule revising the regulation concerning the certification of applicators of restricted use pesticides (RUPs), promulgated in 40 CFR part 171 (82 FR 952; FRL-9956-70). The original effective date of March 6, 2017 was extended to March 21, 2017 by a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2017, entitled “Delay of Effective Date for 30 Final Regulations Published by the Environmental Protection Agency Between October 28, 2016 and January 17, 2017” (82 FR 8499). In that rule, EPA delayed the effective dates of the thirty regulations, including the final rule revising the regulation concerning the certification of applicators of restricted use pesticides (RUPs) issued on January 4, 2017 (82 FR 952) (FR-9956-70), as requested in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” (January 20 Memorandum). The January 20 Memorandum directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to postpone for 60 days from the date of the January 20 Memorandum the effective dates of all regulations that had been published in the Federal Register but had not yet taken effect.

    The January 20 Memorandum further directed that where appropriate and as permitted by applicable law, agencies should consider a rule to delay the effective date for regulations beyond that 60-day period. Accordingly, on March 20, 2017, EPA published the final rule “Further Delay of Effective Dates for Five Final Regulations Published by the Environmental Protection Agency Between December 12, 2016 and January 17, 2017” (82 FR 14324), to give recently arrived Agency officials the opportunity to conduct a substantive review of those five regulations, which included the revised Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule. Pursuant to that March 20, 2017 rule, the effective date of the revised Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule was extended to May 22, 2017.

    On May 15, 2017, EPA solicited public comment on a proposed 12-month delay of the effective date until May 22, 2018 (82 FR 22294; FRL-9962-31). EPA received more than 130 comments in response to the May 15, 2017 request for comments on the proposal to further delay the effective date until May 22, 2018. On May 22, 2017, EPA published a rule that made an interim extension of the effective date of the revised Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule until June 5, 2017 in order to allow additional time for Agency officials to consider and respond to the public comments.

    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), allows the effective date of an action to be less than 30 days from its publication date when a good cause finding is made. The primary reason for the 30-day waiting period between publication and effective date is to allow affected parties to adjust to new requirements. This rule does not impose any new requirements but rather postpones the effective date of requirements that are not yet in effect. As noted below, allowing the rule to go into effect could cause confusion and disruption for affected parties if the rule were subsequently substantially revised or repealed. Thus, EPA finds there is good cause to make this rule effective immediately upon publication.

    In addition, EPA still has only one Senate-confirmed official, and the new Administration has not had the time to adequately review the January 4, 2017 certification rule. This extension to May 22, 2018, will prevent the confusion and disruption among regulatees and stakeholders that would result if the January 4, 2017 rule were to become effective (displace the existing regulation) and then substantially revised or repealed as a result of administrative review.

    In this final rule, EPA is delaying the effective date of the January 4, 2017 revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule until May 22, 2018. EPA is delaying the effective date of the January 4, 2017 revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule until May 22, 2018 in accordance with the Presidential directives as expressed in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” and the principles identified in the April 25, 2017 Executive Order “Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America.”

    II. Comments and Responses

    EPA received more than 130 comments relevant to the proposal to further delay the effective date of the January 4, 2017 Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule until May 22, 2018. Seventeen comments were not relevant to this action because they did not address the extension of the effective date and instead urged EPA to ban chlorpyrifos or only included specific comments about the January 4, 2017 rule. Out of the relevant comments, 18 commenters supported the proposed 12-month extension of the effective date and the rest opposed the proposed 12-month extension.

    Comments—specific provisions. About 20 of the comments included input on the specific provisions of the January 4, 2017 Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule.

    EPA response—specific provisions. This final rule focuses on the extension of the effective date of the certification rule. Comments on the specific provisions of the revised certification rule are outside of the scope of this final rule and will be considered within the review of the rule through the Regulatory Reform Agenda efforts.

    Comments—support. The comments supporting the 12-month extension of the effective date came from state pesticide regulatory agencies, a pesticide safety education program and a number of organizations representing state departments of agriculture, pesticide safety education programs, pesticide applicators, growers, pesticide manufacturers, and pesticide retailers. The commenters supported the 12-month extension for a variety of reasons. The most common reason was to allow EPA and states more time to prepare for the revisions to state certification programs, engage stakeholders, and develop information the states need to efficiently implement the January 4, 2017 rule. Some commenters supported the 12-month extension to give EPA time to revisit certain aspects of the January 4, 2017 rule and identified specific requirements, such as minimum age.

    EPA response—support. EPA generally agrees with these comments. During the next 12 months, EPA plans to engage and work with the certifying authorities (states, tribes and federal agencies), pesticide safety education programs, pesticide applicators and other stakeholders to develop checklists, guidance and tools to facilitate the development of revised certification plans and to discuss how to effectively implement the certification rule. In addition, EPA will conduct a substantive review of the questions of fact, law and policy—all within the context of the very broad cost-benefit standard in FIFRA—during this period. As mentioned above, comments on the specific provisions of the revised certification rule will be considered within the review of the rule through the Regulatory Reform Agenda efforts.

    Comments—adjust implementation schedule. One state pesticide regulatory agency supported the 12-month extension of the effective date of the Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule as long as the implementation schedule in the January 4, 2017 rule is extended as well. This implementation schedule allowed three years for certifying authorities to submit revised plans and an additional two years for EPA to review the plans and agree upon a timeline for the certifying authority to implement the plan.

    EPA response—adjust implementation schedule. EPA agrees with this comment and intends to make corresponding changes to the implementation dates in 40 CFR 171.5 in a subsequent rulemaking.

    Comments—implement protections sooner. The commenters opposing the 12-month extension included over 30 non-governmental organizations representing a range of interests, including but not limited to farm workers, environmental advocates, occupational or migrant health clinics and employment law, and many private citizens. The concerns raised by the commenters opposed to the delay covered several areas, which are summarized and responded to below.

    The commenters urged EPA to begin implementing the rule in May 2017 to allow the intended protections to apply sooner. A few commenters argued that the extension would increase the risk of serious adverse effects on human health and the environment and one commenter pointed out that EPA identified preventable restricted use pesticide exposures to humans and the environment in the January 4, 2017 rule. This commenter stated that delaying the rule by a year means these types of exposures will occur for an additional year.

    EPA response—implement protections sooner. The January 4, 2017 final certification rule would not have immediately put in place additional protections that would prevent or eliminate the types of exposures identified by EPA in its benefits analysis. The January 4, 2017 rule included an implementation schedule where the certifying authorities would have up to three years to submit revised certification plans that conform to the revised standards, so there already was going to be a delay in the protections actually being implemented by the certifying authorities. If EPA develops checklists, guidance and tools to facilitate the development of revised certification plans during the 12-month delay, it is possible that many certifying authorities will be able to submit the revised certification plans well before the three-year deadline for submitting plans.

    Comments—basis for extension. Several commenters argued that EPA did not provide a rational basis for extending the effective date by a year, with one stating that, for that reason, the rule to extend the compliance date is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. The commenters questioned what steps have been taken during the previous 4 months of extensions, what analyses would be done in the next year and why EPA needs 12 more months.

    EPA response—basis for extension. Out of the 30 final regulations whose effective dates were delayed by the January 26, 2017 final rule, this is one of the few regulations with an effective date that has been extended several more times. The Administrator has determined that the certification rule requires a substantive review of the questions of fact, law and policy—all within the context of the very broad cost-benefit standard in FIFRA—so an additional 12 months is necessary and will provide more certainty to certifying authorities, pesticide safety education programs, pesticide applicators and other stakeholders than to have several medium term extensions. Extending the rule by 12 months is also more efficient for EPA staff and allows them to focus on the substantive review rather than drafting and implementing several medium term extensions. The 12-month extension also provides time for EPA to consider revisions to the certification rule based on input received through the Regulatory Reform Agenda efforts.

    Comments—Administrative Procedures Act. Several comments argued that the May 15, 2017 rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in several ways. First, commenters argued that the May 15 rule is a “final rule” that makes a significant amendment to a lawfully promulgated regulation without first proposing the change and seeking public comment. Second, commenters raised a number of concerns about the five-day comment period. Specifically, commenters argued that a delay of the effective date for 12 months is functionally a substantive amendment or rescission of the certification rule so the APA and FIFRA require a notice and comment period of at least 30 days. Commenters also stated that sections 553(d)(1) and (d)(3) of the APA are inapposite (not pertinent) as legal authority for dispensing with a “full . . . comment period” because these sections provide grounds to the generally applicable requirement that no final rule take effect sooner than 30 days after its publication but not the length of the comment period. Some commenters argued that the good cause exception to the APA's notice requirement in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) is not relevant to the May 15, 2017 rule. Lastly, commenters disagreed with EPA's reasoning in the May 15, 2017 rule that a full 30-day comment period is impractical, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

    EPA response—APA. The May 15, 2017 FR Notice was styled as a final rule to be consistent with standard procedures of the Office of the Federal Register, which require that rules that affect existing rules (in the case of rules that address changing the effective date of an existing rule) must appear in the “Final Rules” section of the Federal Register. See OFR Document Drafting Handbook (https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf ) at section 3.1. Irrespective of the “Final Rule” caption, EPA considers the May 15 Federal Register Notice to have the effect of a proposed rule under the APA. This is clear from the phrase “request for comments” in the action line, as well as from the text of the FR Notice, where EPA expressly stated that it was “proposing to further delay the effective date” and requested comment on the proposed extension.

    The Agency's implementation of this action with an abbreviated opportunity for public comment is based on the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), in that providing additional time for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The delay of the effective date until May 22, 2018, is necessary to give Agency officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of the certification rule, consistent with the memorandum of the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, dated January 20, 2017, and the principles identified in the April 25, 2017 Executive Order “Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America.” Given the imminence of the certification rule effective date, allowing a longer period for comment on this delay would have been impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations.

    The 90-day comment period for the 2015 proposed rule, combined with EPA's extensive stakeholder outreach, provided EPA with robust public comment regarding the risks and benefits associated with the January 4, 2017 certification rule. Inasmuch as there was already a robust public comment on the merits of the certification rule, the narrow issue of when the rule should become effective could reasonably be addressed in a short period of time. If EPA had not shortened the comment period to five days, the January 4, 2017 certification rule would have gone into effect. It would have caused unnecessary confusion and disruption to certifying authorities, pesticide safety education programs, pesticide applicators and other stakeholders for the certification rule to go into effect and then potentially be substantially revised or repealed following a substantive review.

    Comments—FIFRA. Some commenters argued that the May 15, 2017 rule violates FIFRA, which requires rules to be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. FIFRA also requires a 60-day effective date and requires EPA to transmit a copy of the final rule to Congress at the beginning of this 60-day period.

    EPA response—FIFRA. EPA disagrees that the proposed extension of the effective date of the certification rule violates FIFRA. EPA is issuing this extension of the effective date of the certification rule as an APA rule and not a FIFRA rule because today's rule is only changing the effective date of a final rule that had not become effective.

    Comments—Endangered Species Act. A few commenters argued that the May 15, 2017 rule violates the Endangered Species Act. Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service unless EPA determined that its extension of the effective date has “no effect” on threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat.

    EPA response—Endangered Species Act. EPA believes that its actions with respect to deferring the implementation of this rule are not inconsistent with its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not involve any information collection activities subject to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    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 RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 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: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.

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

    EPA believes that this action would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 171

    Environmental protection, Applicator competency, Agricultural worker safety, Certified applicator, Pesticide safety training, Pesticide worker safety, Pesticides and pests, Restricted use pesticides.

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11458 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0236; FRL-9954-47] Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions Correction

    In rule document 2016-29882, appearing on pages 93824-93831, in the Issue of Thursday, December 22, 2016, make the following correction:

    On page on page 93827, in the second column, in the last line “(≤15% CT)” should be “(>15% CT)”.

    [FR Doc. C2-2016-29882 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 258 [EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0505; FRL-9962-18-Region 8] Approval of Alternative Final Cover Request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, Montana, Landfill AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve an alternative final cover for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point landfill, a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and operated by the City of Wolf Point, Montana, on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Fort Peck Reservation in Montana.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 1, 2017 without further notice, unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comment by July 3, 2017. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal 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-RCRA-2016-0505, by one of the following methods:

    Online: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Michael Roach, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Mail Code 8P-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.

    Hand delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, which are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0505. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket, without change and may be available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or by email. The http://regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA rather than going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be captured automatically and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. 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:

    Michael Roach, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Mail Code: 8P-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202; telephone number: (303) 312-6369; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment. 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 alternative final cover request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, Montana, landfill if relevant 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 relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    II. What did EPA approve?

    After completing a review of the City of Wolf Point's final site-specific flexibility request, dated May 1, 2011, and the amendments to that request, dated February 23, 2015, and February 9, 2016, the EPA approves Wolf Point's site-specific flexibility request to install an alternative final cover that varies from the final closure requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 258.60(a), but meets the criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(b). This approval applies to the 3.5 acres of the landfill that have not been previously closed.

    III. What is a site-specific flexibility request?

    Under Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), the EPA established revised minimum federal criteria for MSWLFs, including landfill location restrictions, operating standards, design standards and requirements for ground water monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care, and financial assurance. Under RCRA Section 4005(c), states are required to develop permit programs for facilities that may receive household hazardous waste or waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators, and the EPA determines whether the program is adequate to ensure that facilities will comply with the revised criteria.

    The MSWLF criteria are at 40 CFR part 258. These regulations are self-implementing and apply directly to owners and operators of MSWLFs. For many of these criteria, 40 CFR part 258 includes a flexible performance standard as an alternative to the self-implementing regulation. The flexible standard is not self-implementing, and use of the alternative standard requires approval by the Program Director of a state with an EPA-approved program.

    Because the EPA's approval of a state program does not extend to Indian country, as that term is defined at 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1151, owners and operators of MSWLF units located in Indian country cannot take advantage of the flexibilities available to those facilities subject to an approved state program. However, the EPA has the authority under Sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules that may provide for use of alternative standards in Indian country. See Yankton Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471 (D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d. 147 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

    The regulation at 40 CFR 258.60(a) establishes closure criteria for MSWLF units that are designed to minimize infiltration and erosion. The regulation requires final cover systems to be designed and constructed to:

    (1) Have a permeability of less than or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner system or natural sub-soils present, or a permeability no greater than 1 × 10−5 cm/sec, whichever is less, and

    (2) Minimize infiltration through the closed MSWLF by the use of an infiltration layer that contains a minimum of 18 inches of earthen material, and

    (3) Minimize erosion of the final cover by the use of an erosion layer that contains a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth.

    The regulation at 40 CFR 258.60(b) allows for variances from these specified MSWLF closure criteria. Specifically, the rule allows for the Program Director of an approved state to approve an alternative final cover design that includes:

    (1) An infiltration layer that achieves an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration layer specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 40 CFR 258.60, and

    (2) An erosion layer that provides equivalent protection from wind and water erosion as the erosion layer specified in paragraph (a)(3) of 40 CFR 258.60.

    IV. Overview of the City of Wolf Point's Site-Specific Flexibility Request and EPA's Action

    The City of Wolf Point landfill is a MSWLF owned and operated by the City of Wolf Point on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Fort Peck Reservation in Montana. The landfill site is approximately 25 acres in size and served approximately 10,000 people in Roosevelt County, including the City of Wolf Point and the City of Poplar. The landfill lies within the boundaries of the Fort Peck Reservation. The landfill itself consists of two phases, or units, used as the area's municipal landfill. Phase 1, constructed in 1960, was closed and covered in 1999. Phase 2 was constructed in 2000 and stopped receiving waste in August 2008.

    On May 1, 2011, the City of Wolf Point submitted a site-specific flexibility request to the EPA Region 8 and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes for Phase 2 of the Wolf Point landfill. The request sought EPA approval for the use of an alternative final cover that differs from the final closure requirements of 40 CFR 258.60. This request applies only to Phase 2, the 3.5 acres of the landfill not previously closed.

    Between May 1, 2011, and February 9, 2016, the City of Wolf Point made revisions to its request in response to concerns raised by the EPA Region 8 and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes. Today, the EPA is approving Wolf Point's site-specific flexibility request to install an alternative final landfill cover that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 258.60(b).

    The EPA is basing its approval on a number of factors, including final cover design, numerical soil modeling and site-specific climatic and soils data. The numerical soil modeling consisted of a sensitivity analysis of the proposed evapotranspiration alternative final cover system under a range of climate and vegetative growth conditions, compared to the performance of the standard final cover prescribed in 40 CFR 258.60. The EPA has determined that the evapotranspiration cover will perform equivalently to the standard prescriptive cover in 40 CFR 258.60(a) in preventing the movement of leachate through the system and erosion caused by wind and water.

    As part of this approval, the EPA is requiring that upon finalization, the City of Wolf Point submit a complete set of final cover plans and specifications, including a construction quality assurance/quality control plan and closure/post-closure plan to the EPA. The EPA further requires the City of Wolf Point achieve revegetation rates of greater than 75 percent on Phase 2 of the closed landfill by the end of the third year after revegetation. Finally, the EPA requires that the City of Wolf Point maintain all documentation demonstrating compliance with plans and specifications, and 40 CFR 258.60(a)(1), (2), and (3) in the landfill operating record.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” 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 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.

    This rule is also 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 the EPA's conservative analysis of the potential risks posed by the City of Wolf Point's proposal and the controls and standards set forth in the application.

    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.

    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

    Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), calls for the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” The EPA has concluded that this action may have Tribal implications because it is directly applicable to a facility operating on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Fort Peck Reservation. However, this determination will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments nor preempt Tribal law. This determination to approve the City of Wolf Point's application will affect only the operation of the Wolf Point landfill.

    The EPA consulted with the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes early in the process of making this determination to approve Wolf Point's alternative final cover request so that the Tribes had the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input. Between May 1, 2011, and February 9, 2016, technical issues were raised and addressed by the EPA concerning the City of Wolf Point's proposal. The EPA's consultation with the Tribes culminated in a May 19, 2016 letter from the Tribes in which they stated that they have no issues with the Wolf Point proposal. The EPA specifically solicits any additional comment on this determination from Tribal officials of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes.

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards, (e.g., materials specification, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    The technical standards included in the application were proposed by the City of Wolf Point. Given the EPA's obligations under Executive Order 13175 (see above), the agency has, to the extent appropriate, applied the standards established by Wolf Point and accepted by the Tribes. In addition, the agency evaluated the proposal's design against the engineering design and construction criteria contained in the EPA draft guidance document, “Water Balance Covers for Waste Containment: Principles and Practice (2009).”

    Authority:

    Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912, 6944, and 6949a.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Municipal landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: April 17, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258 is amended as follows:

    PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c), 6949a(c) and 6981(a).

    Subpart F—Closure and Post-Closure Care 2. Section 258.62 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility requests in Indian country.

    (c) City of Wolf Point Municipal Landfill final cover requirements. Paragraph (c) of this section applies to the City of Wolf Point Landfill Phase 2, a municipal solid waste landfill owned and operated by the City of Wolf Point on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Fort Peck Reservation in Montana. The facility owner and/or operator may close the facility in accordance with this application, including the following activities more generally described as follows:

    (1) The owner and operator may install an evapotranspiration system as an alternative final cover for the 3.5-acre Phase 2 area.

    (2) The final cover system shall consist of a 4-foot-thick multi-layer cover system comprised of the following from bottom to top: A 12-inch intermediate layer, a 24-inch native silty-clay till layer, and a 12-inch native topsoil layer, as well as seeding and erosion control.

    (3) The final cover system shall be constructed to achieve an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration layer specified in § 258.60(a)(1) and (a)(2), and provide an equivalent protection from wind and water erosion as the erosion layer specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

    (4) In addition to meeting the specifications of “The City of Wolf Point Landfill License #3—Phase 2 Alternative Final Cover Demonstration (Revised)” application of February 9, 2016, the owner and operator shall:

    (i) At finalization, submit to the EPA for approval final cover plans and specifications, including the final Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan and final Closure/Post-Closure Plan; and

    (ii) Achieve re-vegetation rates greater than 75% by the end of the third year after revegetation.

    (5) The owner and operator shall place documentation demonstrating compliance with the provisions of this section in the operating record.

    (6) All other applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 258 remain in effect.

    [FR Doc. 2017-11227 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 36 [CC Docket 80-286; FCC 17-55] Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission extends the existing freeze of jurisdictional separations rules. The current extension allows the Commission, in cooperation with the Federal-State Joint Board, to consider further changes to the separations process in light of changes taking place in the telecommunications market place. The freeze also serves to ease the burdens of regulatory compliance and uncertainty for Local Exchange Carriers.

    DATES:

    Effective June 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rhonda Lien, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1540 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 17-55 released May 15, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full-text copy of this document can also be found at the following internet address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-55A1.docx.

    Synopsis I. Background

    1. Historically, incumbent LECs (ILECs) were subject to rate-of-return rate regulation at both the federal and state levels. After the adoption of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996 Act), the Commission initiated a proceeding to comprehensively reform the part 36 separations procedures to ensure compliance with the objectives of the 1996 Act, and to address statutory, technological, and market changes in the telecommunications industry.

    2. Jurisdictional separations is the third step in a four-step regulatory process that begins with a carrier's accounting system and ends with the establishment of tariffed rates for the ILEC's interstate and intrastate regulated services. First, carriers record their costs into various accounts in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts for Telecommunications Companies (USOA) prescribed by part 32 of our rules. Second, carriers divide the costs in these accounts between regulated and nonregulated activities in accordance with part 64 of our rules. This division ensures that the costs of nonregulated activities will not be recovered in regulated interstate service rates. Third, carriers separate the regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions in accordance with our part 36 separations rules. In certain instances, costs are further disaggregated among service categories. Finally, carriers apportion the interstate regulated costs among the interexchange services and rate elements that form the cost basis for their exchange access tariffs. For carriers subject to rate-of-return regulation, this apportionment is performed in accordance with part 69 of our rules.

    3. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding seeking comment on the extent to which legislative, technological, and market changes warranted comprehensive reform of the separations process. In the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission froze, on an interim basis, the part 36 jurisdictional separation rules for a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first. Specifically, the Commission adopted a freeze of all part 36 category relationships and allocation factors for price cap carriers, and a freeze of all allocation factors for rate-of-return carriers. The Commission concluded that several issues, including the separations treatment of Internet traffic, should be addressed in the context of comprehensive separations reform. The Commission further concluded that the freeze would provide stability and regulatory certainty for ILECs by minimizing any impacts on separations results that might occur due to circumstances not contemplated by the Commission's part 36 rules, such as growth in local competition and new technologies. The Commission also found that a freeze of the separations process would reduce regulatory burdens on ILECs during the transition from a regulated monopoly to a deregulated, competitive environment in the local telecommunications marketplace.

    4. Price cap carriers have since received conditional forbearance from the part 36 jurisdictional separations rules. As a result, the freeze primarily impacts rate-of-return carriers who were only required to freeze their allocation factors, but were given the option of also freezing their category relationships at the outset of the freeze. Those that have chosen to freeze relationships calculate: (1) The relationships between categories of investment and expenses within part 32 accounts; and (2) the jurisdictional allocation factors, as of a specific point in time, and then lock or “freeze” those category relationships and allocation factors in place for a set period of time. The carriers use the “frozen” category relationships and allocation factors for their calculations of separations results and therefore are not required to conduct separations studies for the duration of the freeze.

    5. Over time, the Commission has repeatedly extended the freeze, which is currently set to expire on June 30, 2017. The Commission has consistently consulted with the Joint Board about separations reform, pursuant to the Act's requirement that the Commission refer to the Joint Board proceedings regarding “the jurisdictional separations of common carrier property and expenses between interstate and intrastate operations.” The Joint Board recommended the initial freeze and has made a number of recommendations to the Commission about how best to proceed with reform of the separations rules. The state members of the Joint Board made their most recent recommendations in 2011.

    6. Since the Joint Board's recommendations, the Commission comprehensively reformed its universal service and intercarrier compensation systems and proposed additional reforms. On March 30, 2016, the Commission adopted the Rate-of-Return Reform Order, which instituted significant reforms to the rules governing the provision of universal service support to rate-of-return LECs. On February 23, 2017, we completed our review of the part 32 Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) rules and streamlined various accounting requirements for all carriers and eliminated certain accounting requirements for large carriers.

    7. On March 20, 2017, in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2017 FNPRM), 82 FR 16152-01, April 3, 2017, we proposed and sought comment on a further eighteen month extension of the separations freeze while we continue to work with the Joint Board. Comments were received from eight parties. On April 24, 2017, the Joint Board signaled its intent to move forward by releasing two public notices seeking comment on issues related to comprehensive permanent separations reform, and separations reform in light of recent reforms to part 32 rules. As we explained in the 2017 FNPRM, we anticipate that the Joint Board will meet in July 2017 to consider reform of the separations process and we expect to receive the Joint Board's recommendations for comprehensive separations reform within nine months thereafter.

    II. Discussion

    8. To allow us to move forward with orderly reform of the separations rules, based on the record before us, we extend through December 31, 2018, the freeze on part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors that the Commission adopted in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order. As a result of the extension, price cap carriers that have not availed themselves of conditional forbearance from the part 36 rules will use the same relationships between categories of investment and expenses within part 32 accounts and the same jurisdictional allocation factors that have been in place since the inception of the current freeze on July 1, 2001. Rate-of-return carriers will use the same frozen jurisdictional allocation factors, and will, absent a waiver, use the same frozen category relationships if they had opted in 2001 to freeze those.

    9. The issues involved with modernizing separations are broad and complex. As commenters point out, the policy changes the Commission has adopted in recent years, particularly those arising from the Commission's fundamental reform of the high cost universal service support program, the intercarrier compensation systems, and the part 32 accounting rules, will significantly affect our analysis of interim and comprehensive separations reform, as well as that of the Joint Board. Extending the freeze provides time for the Joint Board to consider the impact of our recent reforms on the separations rules and gives us the time necessary to tackle rule changes informed by the Joint Board's recommendations. We strongly urge interested parties to provide detailed and constructive feedback about how best to revise or eliminate the separations process as we work towards separations reform with the Joint Board.

    10. We agree with those commenters that argue that allowing the existing freeze to lapse and frozen separations rules to be reinstated during the pendency of our work with the Joint Board would create undue instability and administrative burdens on affected carriers. As WTA has explained, reinstating these long-unused separations rules, many of which are now outmoded, would not only require substantial training and investment by rural LECs, but also could cause significant disruptions in their regulated rates, cost recovery and other operating conditions. If we were to allow the freeze to expire, carriers would have to reinstitute their former separations processes, even those that no longer have the necessary employees and systems in place to comply with the separations rules. Many carriers likely would have to hire or reassign and train employees and redevelop systems for collecting and analyzing the data necessary to perform separations in the prior manner. Requiring carriers to reinstate their separations systems “would be unduly burdensome when there is a significant likelihood that there would be no lasting benefit to doing so.”

    11. Two commenters, a group of concerned individuals called the Irregulators and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. (Terral), oppose the extension of the freeze. According to the Irregulators, the freeze is being used to deliberately hide “massive financial cross subsidies and data manipulation.” However, the evidence offered does not support this claim. We thus find the harm alleged by the Irregulators to be speculative and insufficient to outweigh the clear benefits that will result from granting a further extension. Terral opposes the extension as it applies to Terral and then uses its comments to ask the Commission to grant its pending petition for waiver of the categories of frozen separations. We decline, however, to substantively address individual requests for relief or a waiver of the separations rules in this Order as those requests are beyond the scope of this proceeding. We do welcome the input of these commenters as we move toward full consideration of how best to reform the separations rules and note that the decision to extend the freeze does not affect the Commission's ability to address pending or future waiver petitions.

    12. Separately, we deny the request of USTelecom to modify frozen category relationships for carriers electing the Alternative Connect America Cost Model and to make other changes to the separations process. These issues fall within the pending referral to the Joint Board and may be addressed in the Joint Board's recommended decision. We will therefore not grant USTelecom's request here.

    13. With regard to the length of the extension, the majority of commenters support extending the freeze for at least eighteen months. Some argue that the freeze should be longer, and should be tied to the completion of a comprehensive rulemaking. Some stakeholders have expressed concern about the amount of time needed to operationalize any changes we ultimately make to the separations rules. While those concerns are legitimate, they are premature at this point in the process, and would be more appropriately raised and addressed when considering the implementation of any reform measures as part of the on-going, comprehensive rulemaking proceeding.

    14. We find that extending the freeze by eighteen months, the length of time proposed in the 2017 FNPRM, is appropriate. We fully agree with NASUCA that the freeze should not continue indefinitely. While we recognize that an eighteen-month freeze extension is shorter than those the Commission previously adopted, as we explained in the 2017 FNPRM, “now is the time to address the separations rules.” We are committed to moving this process forward and believe that eighteen months is a sufficient amount of time to carefully consider the issues in the record and work with the Joint Board toward meaningful separations reform. We intend to work diligently with the Joint Board toward that goal.

    III. Procedural Matters

    15. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    16. As discussed above, in 2001 the Commission adopted a Joint Board recommendation to impose an interim freeze of the part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors, pending comprehensive reform of the part 36 separations rules. The Commission ordered that the freeze would be in effect for a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first. On May 16, 2006, concluding that more time was needed to implement comprehensive separations reform, the Commission extended the freeze for three years or until such comprehensive reform could be completed, whichever came first. On May 15, 2009, the Commission extended the freeze through June 30, 2010; on May 24, 2010, extended the freeze through June 30, 2011; on May 3, 2011, extended the freeze through June 30, 2012; on May 8, 2012, extended the freeze through June 30, 2104; and on June 12, 2014, extending the freeze through June 30, 2017.

    17. The purpose of the current extension of the freeze is to allow the Commission and the Joint Board additional time to consider changes that may need to be made to the separations process in light of changes in the law, technology, and market structure of the telecommunications industry without creating the undue instability and administrative burdens that would occur were the Commission to eliminate the freeze.

    18. Implementation of the freeze extension will ease the administrative burden of regulatory compliance for LECs, including small incumbent LECs. The freeze has eliminated the need for all incumbent LECs, including incumbent LECs with 1500 employees or fewer, to complete certain annual studies formerly required by the Commission's rules. The effect of the freeze extension is to reduce a regulatory compliance burden for small incumbent LECs, by abating the aforementioned separations studies and providing these carriers with greater regulatory certainty. Therefore, we certify that the requirement of the report and order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    19. The Commission will send a copy of the report and order, including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the report and order and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register.

    20. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Report and Order does not contain new, modified, or proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new, modified, or proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    21. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    22. Effective Date. We find good cause to make these rule changes effective June 2, 2017. As explained above, the current freeze is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. To avoid unnecessary disruption to carriers subject to these rules, we preserve the status quo by making the extension of the freeze effective before the scheduled expiration date.

    IV. Ordering Clauses

    23. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-05, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410, that this Report and Order is adopted.

    24. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    25. It is further ordered, pursuant to section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and sections 1.4(b)(1) and 1.427(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.427(b), that this Report and Order shall be effective June 2, 2017.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Uniform System of Accounts.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 36 as follows:

    PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR SEPARATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, TAXES AND RESERVES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES 1. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410 and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

    §§ 36.3, 36.123, 36.124, 36.125, 36.126, 36.141, 36.142, 36.152, 36.154, 36.155, 36.157, 36.191, 36.212, 36.214, 36.372, 36.374, 36.375, 36.377, 36.378, 36.379, 36.380, 36.381, and 36.382 [Amended]
    2. In 47 CFR part 36, remove the date “June 30, 2017” and add, in its place, the date “December 30, 2018” in the following places: a. Section 36.3(a) through (c), (d) introductory text, and (e); b. Section 36.123(a)(5) and (6); c. Section 36.124(c) and (d); d. Section 36.125(h) and (i); e. Section 36.126(b)(6), (c)(4), (e)(4), and (f)(2); f. Section 36.141(c); g. Section 36.142(c); h. Section 36.152(d); i. Section 36.154(g); j. Section 36.155(b); k. Section 36.156(c); l. Section 36.157(b); m. Section 36.191(d); n. Section 36.212(c); o. Section 36.214(a); p. Section 36.372; q. Section 36.374(b) and (d); r. Section 36.375(b)(4) and (5); s. Section 36.377(a) introductory text, (a)(1)(ix), (a)(2)(vii), (a)(3)(vii), (a)(4)(vii), (a)(5)(vii), and (a)(6)(vii); t. Section 36.378(b)(1); u. Section 36.379(b)(1) and (2); v. Section 36.380(d) and (e); w. Section 36.381(c) and (d); and x. Section 36.382(a).
    [FR Doc. 2017-11418 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 105 Friday, June 2, 2017 Proposed Rules FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 229 [Regulation CC; Docket No. R-1564] RIN 7100 AE 78 Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule, request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board is proposing to amend Regulation CC to address situations where there is a dispute as to whether a check has been altered or is a forgery, and the original paper check is not available for inspection. The proposed rule would adopt a presumption of alteration for any dispute over whether the dollar amount or the payee on a substitute check or electronic check has been altered or whether the substitute check or electronic check is derived from an original check that is a forgery. This rule is intended to provide clarity as to the burden of proof in these situations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted by August 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1564 by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available on the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, except as necessary for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room 3515, 1801 K Street NW. (between 18th and 19th Street NW.), Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clinton N. Chen, Attorney (202/452-3952), Legal Division; or Ian C.B. Spear, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202/452-3959), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; for users of Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263-4869; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Congress enacted the Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987 (EFA Act) to provide prompt funds availability for deposits in transaction accounts and to foster improvements in the check collection and return processes. Section 609(c) authorizes the Board to regulate any aspect of the payment system and any related function of the payment system with respect to checks in order to carry out the provisions of the EFA Act.1

    1 EFA Act section 609(c)(1) states that “[i]n order to carry out the provisions of this title, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall have the responsibility to regulate—(A) any aspect of the payment system, including the receipt, payment, collection, or clearing of checks; and (B) any related function of the payment system with respect to checks.” 12 U.S.C. 4008(c)(1).

    Regulation CC implements the EFA Act. Subpart C of Regulation CC implements the EFA Act's provisions regarding forward collection and return of checks.

    II. UCC Provisions Regarding Altered and Forged Checks

    Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), an alteration is a change to the terms of a check that is made after the check is issued that modifies an obligation of a party by, for example, changing the payee's name or the amount of the check.2 By contrast, a forgery is a check on which the signature of the drawer (i.e., the account-holder at the paying bank) was made without authorization at the time of the check's issuance.3 In general, under UCC 4-401, the paying bank may charge the drawer's account only for checks that are properly payable.4 Neither altered checks nor forged checks are properly payable. In the case of an altered check under the UCC, the banks that received the check during forward collection, including the paying bank, have warranty claims against the banks that transferred the check (e.g., a collecting bank or the depositary bank). In the case of a forged check, however, the UCC places the responsibility on the paying bank for identifying the forgery.5 Therefore, the depositary bank typically bears the loss related to an altered check, whereas the paying bank bears the loss related to a forged check.

    2 UCC 3-407. The UCC is a uniform body of laws promulgated by the American Law Institute and the Uniform Law Commission, which may be enacted by state legislatures. Article 3 addresses payment by check and other negotiable instruments while Article 4 addresses bank deposits.

    3 The term “forgery” is not defined in the UCC. However, the term “unauthorized signature” is defined as “a signature made without actual, implied, or apparent authority” and “includes a forgery.” UCC 1-201(41).

    4 The term “bank” as used in this notice and in Regulation CC (12 CFR 229.2(e)) includes a commercial bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, and a U.S. agency or branch of a foreign bank.

    5 The presenting bank warrants to the paying bank only that it has no knowledge of an unauthorized drawer's signature. See UCC 3-417 and 4-208.

    These provisions of the UCC reflect the long-standing rule set forth in Price v. Neal that the paying bank must bear the loss when a check it pays is not properly payable by virtue of the fact that the drawer did not authorize the item.6 The Price v. Neal rule reflects the assumption that the paying bank, rather than the depositary bank, is in the best position to judge whether the drawer's signature on a check is the authorized signature of the account-holder. By contrast, the depositary bank is arguably in a better position than the paying bank to inspect the check at the time of deposit and detect an alteration to the face of the check, to determine that the amount of the check is unusual for the depositary bank's customer, or to otherwise take responsibility for the items it accepts for deposit.

    6Price v. Neal, 97 Eng. Rep. 871 (K.B. 1762).

    III. Proposed Presumption of Alteration

    Regulation CC does not currently address whether a check should be presumed to be altered or forged in cases of doubt. For example, an unauthorized payee name could result from an alteration of the original check that the drawer issued, or from the creation of a forged check bearing the unauthorized payee name and an unauthorized/forged drawer's signature. Courts have reached opposite conclusions as to whether a paid, but fraudulent, check should be presumed to be altered or forged in the absence of evidence (such as the original check).7 Since the time of these decisions, the check collection system has become overwhelmingly electronic, and the number of instances in which the original paper check is available for inspection in such cases will be quite low.8 Unlike the 2006 court cases, where the paying bank received and destroyed the original check, in today's check environment the original check is typically truncated by the depositary bank or a collecting bank before it reaches the paying bank. In light of requests from members of the industry, the Board requested comment on the adoption of an evidentiary presumption in Regulation CC.9 Specifically, the Board requested comment on whether it should adopt an evidentiary presumption, and if yes, whether the check should be presumed to be altered or forged in cases of doubt.10 The Board also requested comment on whether banks are aware of or have information pertaining to whether forged checks are a more common method of committing fraud than altering the payee name or amount on the check.

    7See, e.g., Chevy Chase Bank v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 208 Fed. App'x. 232, 235 (4th Cir. 2006) and Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Foster Bancshares, Inc., 457 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2006).

    8 For example, by the beginning of 2017 the Federal Reserve Banks received over 99.99 percent of checks electronically from 99.06 percent of routing numbers and presented over 99.99 percent of checks electronically to over 99.76 percent of routing numbers. As of the same time, the Federal Reserve Banks received 99.63 percent of returned checks electronically from over 99.37 percent of routing numbers and delivered 99.41 percent of returned checks electronically to 92.84 percent of routing numbers.

    9 Although the Board did not raise the issue, two commenters requested that the Board address the uncertainty caused by the divergent appellate court decisions in response to a 2011 proposed rulemaking. 76 FR 16862 (March 25, 2011). The Board describes these comments in greater detail as part of its 2014 proposal. 79 FR 6673, 6703 (Feb. 4, 2014).

    10 The Board believes that the substance of the UCC's loss-allocation framework for altered and forged checks, under which the depositary bank generally bears the loss for altered checks and the paying bank generally bears the loss for forged checks, continues to be appropriate in the current check-processing environment.

    The Board received four comments concerning the adoption of an evidentiary presumption.11 All four, including a comment letter submitted by a group of institutions and trade associations, supported the adoption of an evidentiary presumption of alteration in the event that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether a particular check was altered or is a forged item. One commenter believed that a presumption of alteration (imposing the risk of loss on the depositary bank as described above) is appropriate in today's virtually all-electronic environment. The commenter reasoned that in today's environment the vast majority of checks are truncated by the depositary banks or their customers, the depositary bank has the option of retaining the original check, and if the depositary bank presents a substitute check, the paying bank does not have the right to demand presentment of the original check.

    11 The Board received an additional comment about the applicability of the UCC to alterations by persons other than the payee. The commenter did not address whether the Board should adopt an evidentiary presumption.

    Based on these comments, the Board is proposing to adopt a presumption of alteration with respect to any dispute arising under federal or state law as to whether the dollar amount or the payee on a substitute check or electronic check has been altered or whether the substitute check or electronic check is derived from an original check that is a forgery. The Board requests comment on whether the presumption should also apply to a claim that the date was altered.

    Under the proposed rule, the presumption of alteration may be overcome by a preponderance of evidence that the substitute check or electronic check accurately represents the dollar amount and payee as authorized by the drawer, or that the substitute check or electronic check is derived from an original check that is a forgery. The proposed rule would also state that the presumption of alteration shall cease to apply if the original check is made available for examination by all parties involved in the dispute. The Board requests comment on whether the presumption of alteration should apply if the bank claiming the presumption received and destroyed the original check.

    The Board is also proposing accompanying commentary provisions to explain the operation of the rule, including clarification that the presumption does not alter the process by which a bank may seek to make a claim against another bank on a check that the bank alleges to be altered.

    IV. Competitive Impact Analysis

    The Board conducts a competitive impact analysis when it considers an operational or legal change, if that change would have a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete with the Federal Reserve in providing similar services due to legal differences or due to the Federal Reserve's dominant market position deriving from such legal differences. All operational or legal changes having a substantial effect on payments-system participants will be subject to a competitive-impact analysis, even if competitive effects are not apparent on the face of the proposal. If such legal differences exist, the Board will assess whether the same objectives could be achieved by a modified proposal with lesser competitive impact or, if not, whether the benefits of the proposal (such as contributing to payments-system efficiency or integrity or other Board objectives) outweigh the materially adverse effect on competition.12

    12 Federal Reserve Regulatory Service, 7-145.2.

    The Board does not believe that the proposed amendments to Regulation CC will have a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete effectively with the Reserve Banks in providing similar services due to legal differences. The proposed amendments would apply to the Reserve Banks and private-sector service providers alike and would not affect the competitive position of private-sector presenting banks vis-à-vis the Reserve Banks.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Board reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the OMB and determined that it contains no collections of information under the PRA.13 Accordingly, there is no paperwork burden associated with the rule.

    13See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (the “RFA”) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies either to provide an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with a proposed rule or to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with section 3(a) of the RFA, the Board has reviewed the proposed regulation. In this case, the proposed rule would apply to all depository institutions. This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603 in order for the Board to solicit comment on the effect of the proposal on small entities. The Board will, if necessary, conduct a final regulatory flexibility analysis after consideration of comments received during the public comment period.

    1. Statement of the Need for, Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

    The Board is proposing the foregoing amendments to Regulation CC pursuant to its authority under the EFA Act. The proposal addresses situations where there is a dispute as to whether a check has been altered or is a forgery, and the original paper check is not available for inspection. The check collection system has become overwhelmingly electronic, and the number of instances in which the original paper check will be available for inspection in such cases will be quite low. Under the UCC, the depositary bank typically bears the loss related to an altered check, whereas the paying bank bears the loss related to a forged check. The proposed rule would adopt a presumption of alteration with respect to any dispute as to whether the dollar amount or the payee on a substitute check or electronic check has been altered or whether the substitute check or electronic check is derived from an original check that is a forgery.

    2. Small Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would apply to all depository institutions regardless of their size.14 Pursuant to regulations issued by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201), a “small banking organization” includes a depository institution with $550 million or less in total assets. Based on call report data as of December 2016, there are approximately 10,185 depository institutions that have total domestic assets of $550 million or less and thus are considered small entities for purposes of the RFA.

    14 The proposed rule would not impose costs on any small entities other than depository institutions.

    3. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    A presumption of alteration shifts the burden to the bank that warrants that a check has not been altered, which could be a depositary bank or collecting bank. In order to overcome the proposed presumption of alteration, a depositary bank or collecting bank must prove by a preponderance of evidence that either the substitute check or electronic check accurately represents the dollar amount and payee as authorized by the drawer, or that the substitute check or electronic check is derived from an original check that is a forgery. Under the proposed rule, the presumption of alteration shall cease to apply if the original check is made available for examination by all parties involved in the dispute.

    A depositary bank or collecting bank that destroys all original checks after truncation may incur additional risk, as it may not be able to overcome the presumption of alteration. The Board expects depositary banks and collecting banks to weigh the costs and benefits of destroying or retaining original checks, such as for large dollar amounts, so that the presumption of alteration will not apply.

    4. Identification of Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    As mentioned above, courts have reached opposite conclusions as to whether, under the Uniform Commercial Code, a paid, but fraudulent, check should be presumed to be altered or forged in the absence of evidence, such as the original check. The proposal would resolve that discrepancy under the conditions described above. The Board knows of no other duplicative, overlapping, to conflicting Federal rules related to this proposal.

    5. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    As discussed above, the Board requested comment as part of its 2014 Regulation CC proposal on whether it should adopt an evidentiary presumption, and if so, whether the check should be presumed to be altered or forged in cases of doubt.15 All comments received supported the adoption of an evidentiary presumption of alteration. The Board welcomes comment on the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and any approaches, other than the proposed alternatives, that would reduce the burden on all entities, including small issuers.

    15 79 FR 6673, 6703 (Feb. 4, 2014).

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 229

    Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 229 as follows:

    PART 229—AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND COLLECTION OF CHECKS (REGULATION CC) 1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 4001-4010, 12 U.S.C. 5001-5018.

    2. In § 229.38, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows: Subpart C—Collection of Checks
    § 229.38 Liability.

    (i) Presumption of Alteration. (1) Presumption. Subject to paragraph (i)(2), the presumption in this paragraph applies with respect to any dispute arising under federal or state law as to whether—

    (i) The dollar amount or the payee on a substitute check or electronic check has been altered or

    (ii) The substitute check or electronic check is derived from an original check that is a forgery.

    When such a dispute arises, there is a rebuttable presumption that the substitute check or electronic check contains an alteration of the dollar amount or the payee. The presumption of alteration may be overcome by proving by a preponderance of evidence that either the substitute check or electronic check accurately represents the dollar amount and payee as authorized by the drawer, or that the substitute check or electronic check is derived from an original check that is a forgery.

    (2) Effect of producing original check. If the original check made available for examination by all parties involved in the dispute, the presumption in paragraph (i)(1) shall no longer apply.

    3. In Appendix E to part 229, under “XXIV. Section 229.38 Liabilities,” add paragraph “I. 229.38(i) Presumption of Alteration”

    The addition reads as follows:

    Appendix E to Part 229—Commentary XXIV. Section 229.38 Liability I. 229.38(i) Presumption of Alteration

    1. This paragraph establishes an evidentiary presumption of alteration of a check when the original check has been converted to an image and only an electronic check or a substitute check is available for inspection. This provision does not alter the transfer and presentment warranties under the UCC that allocate liability among the parties to a check transaction with respect to an altered or forged item. The UCC or other applicable check law continues to apply with respect to other rights, duties, and obligations related to altered or forged checks.

    2. The presumption of alteration applies when the original check is unavailable for review by the banks in context of the dispute. If the original check is produced, through discovery or other means, and is made available for examination by all the parties, the presumption no longer applies. There is no presumption of alteration as between two banks that exchange an original check.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 26, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11380 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0498; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-175-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-15-10, for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2015-15-10 currently requires repetitive inspections of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) for damage, and replacement if necessary; and replacement of the THSA after reaching a certain life limit. Since we issued AD 2015-15-10, an additional life limit for the THSA has been established, based on flight cycles. In addition, the THSA manufacturer has issued service information which, when accomplished, increases the life limit of the THSA. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections of certain THSAs, and related investigative 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 Airbus service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    For United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS) service information identified in this NPRM, contact Goodrich Corporation, Actuation Systems, Stafford Road, Fordhouses, Wolverhampton WV10 7EH, England; phone: +44 (0) 1902 624938; fax: +44 (0) 1902 788100; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.

    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-2017-0498; 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:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2017-0498; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-175-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 July 12, 2015, we issued AD 2015-15-10, Amendment 39-18219 (80 FR 43928, July 24, 2015) (“AD 2015-15-10”), for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2015-15-10 was prompted by reports of wear of the THSA. AD 2015-15-10 requires repetitive inspections of the THSA for damage, and replacement if necessary; and replacement of the THSA after reaching a certain life limit. We issued AD 2015-15-10 to detect and correct wear on the THSA, which would reduce the remaining life of the THSA, possibly resulting in premature failure and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    Since we issued AD 2015-15-10, an additional life limit for the THSA has been established, based on flight cycles. In addition, the THSA manufacturer has issued service information which, when accomplished, increases the life limit of the THSA.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0184, dated September 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In the frame of the A320 Extended Service Goal (ESG) project and the study on the Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA), a sampling programme of in-service units was performed and several cases of wear at different THSA levels were reported.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, would reduce the remaining life of the THSA, possibly resulting in premature failure and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-27-1227 to provide THSA inspection instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0011 (later revised) [which corresponds to AD 2015-15-10] to require repetitive inspections of the THSA [and related investigative and corrective actions] and to introduce a life limit for the THSA, based on flight hours (FH).

    Since EASA AD 2014-0011R1 was issued, an additional life limitation has been established, based on flight cycles (FC). Furthermore, United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS), the THSA manufacturer, issued an SB which, after accomplishment on THSA, increases the life limit of the THSA.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0011R1, which is superseded, and introduces an additional FC life limit for the affected THSA. This [EASA] AD also provides a revised life limit for the THSA after UTAS SB accomplishment on that THSA.

    The required action is repetitive special detailed inspections of the THSA. The optional terminating action is overhaul of the THSA. The related investigative action is a spectrometric analysis of the oil drained from the THSA gearbox. The corrective action is replacement of a THSA with a serviceable THSA.

    The compliance time for the related investigative and corrective actions varies depending on the findings, and ranges from before further flight to 4 months or between 1,000 and 1,250 flight hours since the first THSA oil drain.

    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-2017-0498.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections for wear of the THSA, and related investigative 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 these same type designs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,182 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 Inspections 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 per inspection cycle $0 $510 per inspection cycle $602,820 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the spectrometric analysis of the oil drained from the THSA gearbox. We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements or overhauls 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 replacements or overhauls:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement of THSA (retained from AD 2015-15-10) 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 $240,000 $240,935 Overhaul of THSA (new proposed action) 66 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,610 115,000 120,610
    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) 2015-15-10, Amendment 39-18219 (80 FR 43928, July 24, 2015), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0498; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-175-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-15-10, Amendment 39-18219 (80 FR 43928, July 24, 2105) (“AD 2015-15-10”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of wear at different levels in the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear of the THSA, which could reduce the remaining life of the THSA, possibly resulting in premature failure and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Serviceable THSA Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable THSA is a THSA that does not exceed the life limits as identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD.

    Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (j) of This AD—THSA Life Limits Configuration, based on service bulletin (SB) embodiment Compliance time (whichever occurs first) THSA on which United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS) SB 47145-27-19 has not been embodied Before exceeding 67,500 flight hours (FH) since first installation on an airplane, or before exceeding 48,000 flight cycles (FC) since first installation on an airplane. THSA on which UTAS SB 47145-27-19 has been embodied Before exceeding 52,500 FH after embodiment of UTAS SB 47145-27-19 on an airplane, without exceeding 120,000 FH since first installation on an airplane; or before exceeding 27,000 FC after embodiment of UTAS SB 47145-27-19 on an airplane, without exceeding 75,000 FC since first installation on an airplane. (h) Repetitive Inspection and Related Investigative Actions

    For any airplane on which UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 has not been embodied: Before the THSA exceeds 48,000 flight hours or 30,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since first installation on an airplane, do a special detailed inspection of the THSA and do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. Do all applicable related investigative actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.

    (i) Corrective Action

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any finding as described in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016, is identified: At the applicable time (depending on the applicable finding) specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016, replace the THSA with a serviceable THSA, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016.

    (j) THSA Replacement

    Within the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, replace each THSA with a serviceable THSA, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016.

    (k) Replacement THSA: No Terminating Action

    Replacement of a THSA on an airplane, as required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, unless the THSA is overhauled as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 (i.e., post-service bulletin).

    (l) Optional Terminating Action: Overhaul of THSA

    Accomplishment of a modification of an airplane by installing a THSA that has been overhauled as specified in UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that, following modification, no THSA is reinstalled on the airplane unless it has been overhauled as specified in UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19.

    (m) Replacement THSA Equivalency

    As of the effective date of this AD: A THSA that has been repaired in shop as specified in UTAS Component Maintenance Manual 27-44-51 is acceptable for compliance with the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (n) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any airplane a THSA unless it is a serviceable THSA as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

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

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, dated July 1, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 01, dated October 7, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2015-15-10.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 02, dated February 2, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (p) 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 (q)(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 Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0184, dated September 13, 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-2017-0498.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

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

    (4) For UTAS service information in this AD, contact Goodrich Corporation, Actuation Systems, Stafford Road, Fordhouses, Wolverhampton WV10 7EH, England; phone: +44 (0) 1902 624938; fax: +44 (0) 1902 788100; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10607 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0512; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-031-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 certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of failures of the landing gear alternate-extension system. This proposed AD would require replacement of certain nose landing gear and main landing gear electro-mechanical actuators. 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-2017-0512; 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-2017-0512; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-031-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 AD CF-2017-08, dated March 8, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Malfunctions of the landing gear Alternate-Extension System (AES) have been experienced. Failure of the landing gear AES could prevent the landing gear from extending in the case of a failure of the primary landing gear extension system.

    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the replacement of the [nose landing gear] NLG and [main landing gear] MLG [electro-mechanical actuators] EMA P/Ns BA698-85006-1 and BA698-85007-1.

    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-2017-0512.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, Revision A, dated December 5, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing certain nose landing gear and main landing gear electro-mechanical actuators. 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 39 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
    Replacement 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 Not available $340 $13,260

    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 available costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    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-2017-0512; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-031-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 19001 through 19039 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by failures of the landing gear alternate-extension system (AES). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the landing gear AES and consequent landing with some or all of the landing gear not extended.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Within 1,200 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the nose landing gear (NLG) and main landing gear (MLG) electro-mechanical actuators (EMA) having part numbers (P/Ns) BA698-85006-1 and BA698-85007-1 with P/Ns BA698-85006-3 and BA698-85007-3, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, Revision A, dated December 5, 2016 (“670BA-32-047, RA”). Where 670BA-32-047, RA, instructs operators to contact Bombardier if it is not possible to complete all the instructions in 670BA-32-047, RA, because of the configuration of the airplane, this AD requires that any deviation from the instructions provided in 670BA-32-047, RA, must be approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an NLG or MLG EMA having P/N BA698-85006-1 or BA698-85007-1, on any airplane.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, dated February 28, 2014.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to 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 AD CF-2017-08, dated March 8, 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-2017-0512.

    (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 18, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11005 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0503; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-032-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company 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 The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking of various structures in the bulkhead. This proposed AD would require an inspection for cracking in these structures, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0503.

    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-2017-0503; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    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-2017-0503; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-032-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

    Discussion

    We have received reports of cracking of various structures in The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), and DC-9-83 (MD-83) airplanes at the cant station 1463 bulkhead, and the Model DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes at the cant station 1254 bulkhead. One incident of cracking was discovered during a heavy maintenance visit on an airplane with 63,480 total flight hours, and 45,809 total flight cycles. The cracks were in the upper left area of the bulkhead, between longerons L-2 and L-3, in the frame web, horizontal stiffeners, lower frame cap, rear spar cap, and spar cap web. An analysis has determined that the operational and limit loads cannot duplicate this condition and the root cause is suspected to be the result of a high load event(s). This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection on the left and right sides of the forward and aft surfaces of cant station 1463 bulkhead and cant station 1254 bulkhead for cracking in the upper caps, upper cap doublers, bulkhead webs and doublers, stiffeners, lower caps, and vertical stabilizer rear spar caps and webs, between longerons L-11L through L-11R, 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

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0503.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016, specifies doing the inspection at cant station 1463 bulkhead for Model MD-88 airplanes. However, Model MD-88 airplanes are similar in design to Model DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes, and should instead be inspected at cant station 1254 bulkhead. Therefore, this proposed AD specifies that the proposed actions for Model MD-88 airplanes be accomplished using the Accomplishment Instructions for Model DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 361 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 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $92,055

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0503; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-032-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of various structures at the cant station 1463 bulkhead and at the cant station 1254 bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at the cant station 1463 bulkhead and cant station 1254 bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 700 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection for cracking on the left and right sides of the forward and aft surfaces of the cant station 1463 bulkhead (for Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), and DC-9-83 (MD-83) airplanes) and cant station 1254 bulkhead (for DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes and MD-88 airplanes); and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016, except as required in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (h) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) For Model MD-88 airplanes: This AD requires that instead of inspecting at cant station 1463 bulkhead, operators must inspect at cant station 1254 bulkhead, which is identified as “DC-9-87 (MD-87) CANT STA 1254 BULKHEAD” in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-16-0684-01B, dated October 7, 2016.

    (j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), may be issued to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished, but concurrence by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is required before issuance of the special flight permit.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11006 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0519; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-001-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company 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 The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain fuselage frame web. This proposed AD would require inspecting the fuselage frame for existing repairs, repetitive inspections of the frame, and applicable repairs. 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0519.

    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-2017-0519; 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 Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5205; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    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-2017-0519; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-001-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 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 proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We have received a report indicating a 6-inch-long crack in the fuselage frame web at station (STA) 1681, below the floor line at stringer S-17L, was found during a routine maintenance visit. The crack was not easily detected because it was hidden by adjacent structure. Analysis revealed that the crack was caused by fatigue. Cracking of the fuselage frame, if not detected and corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the fuselage frame for existing frame and floor beam repairs, and repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking in any area with no existing frame repair, repetitive high and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracking in any area with no existing frame or floor beam repair, and repair. 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

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016, described previously, except for differences between this proposed AD and the service information that are identified in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0519.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 606 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 for existing frame and floor beam repairs 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $51,510. Repetitive inspections Up to 32 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $2,720 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $2,720 Up to $1,648,320.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0519; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-001-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in the fuselage frame web at station (STA) 1681. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage frame at STA 1681, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Actions Required for Compliance

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do all applicable actions identified as required for compliance (“RC”) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016.

    (h) Exceptions

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016, uses the phrase “after the original issue of this service bulletin” for determining compliance, for purposes of this AD, compliance is based on the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016, specifies contacting Boeing for instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5205; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 19, 2017. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11004 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0514; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-206-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 all Airbus 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 a revision of certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which require more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. 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-2017-0514; 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-2017-0514; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-206-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 2016-0218, dated November 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A300-600 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) document(s). These instructions have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.

    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2014-0124 (later revised)[which includes actions for Airbus A300-600 airplanes; those actions are included in FAA AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19, 2014) (“AD 2013-13-13”)], requiring the actions described in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) Document at issue 13 and Temporary Revision (TR) 13.1.

    Since EASA AD 2014-0124R1 was issued, Airbus replaced A300-600 ALI Document issue 13, with A300-600 ALS Part 2 Revision 01 and then published the A300-600 ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 and Variation 1.2, to introduce more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.

    A300-600 ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 also includes ALI 571067 and ALI 571068, superseding Service Bulletin A300-53-6154, which is referenced in EASA AD 2006-0257 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-22-05, Amendment 39-15241 (72 FR 60236, October 24, 2007) (“AD 2007-22-05”)].

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains part of the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124R1, which will be superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 2 Revision 01, and ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 and ALS Part 2 Variation 1.2 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD), and supersedes EASA AD 2006-0257. The remaining requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124R1 are retained in AD 2016-0217, applicable to A310 aeroplanes, published at the same time as this [EASA] AD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0514.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:

    • Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.

    • Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.

    • Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.

    The service information describes airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT ALIs. These documents are distinct because they contain unique tasks. 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.

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2007-22-05 and AD 2013-13-13. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all the requirements of AD 2007-22-05 and AD 2013-13-13.

    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 128 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
    Maintenance program revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 None $85 $10,880
    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-2017-0514; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-206-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2007-22-05, Amendment 39-15241 (72 FR 60236, October 24, 2007) (“AD 2007-22-05”) and AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19, 2014) (“AD 2013-13-13”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/maintenance checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which require more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance times for doing the tasks are at the time specified in the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.

    (2) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.

    (3) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.

    (h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), or intervals, may be used unless the actions, or intervals, are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Terminating Actions

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all of the requirements of AD 2007-22-05 and AD 2013-13-13 for that airplane only.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0218, dated November 2, 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-2017-0514.

    (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. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (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 18, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11003 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0518; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-167-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 certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by the failure of the fire control amplifier, which was likely caused by an electrical short in a discharged squib for a fire extinguishing bottle. This proposed AD would require replacing certain circuit breakers. 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., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2017-0518; 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:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; 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-2017-0518; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-167-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-2016-25, dated September 5, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An operator reported having a false SMOKE warning light for the Aft Baggage compartment, which caused the pilots to discharge the Aft Baggage compartment fire extinguishing bottles per Aircraft Flight Manual procedures. Subsequently, there were continuous engine and Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) fire warning lights, and the fire extinguishing bottles for both engines (forward and aft) and the APU were automatically discharged. Post event investigation of the Fire Control Amplifier (FCA) revealed a burnt 2600-P2 connector. The FCA was also found to have sustained significant thermal damage. In a separate event involving a different operator, several fire extinguishing bottles discharged after an electrical short was introduced into the FCA by a shorted squib tester (external ground support equipment) during maintenance.

    The FCA manufacturer has identified the most likely failure condition to be an electrical short at the discharged squib. The squib's burst disk may have caused a short circuit of the bridgewires, which caused the FCA's internal power wires to experience thermal damage, consequently powering other squibs and fire alarm lines and resulting in the uncommanded discharge of the fire extinguishing bottles and false fire indications.

    Bombardier (BA) has issued service bulletin (SB) 84-26-16 to change two 7.5 amp circuit breakers to lower current rating 1 amp circuit breakers to prevent damage to squib discharge circuits and the inadvertent discharge of fire extinguishing bottles.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of [Bombardier Service Bulletin] SB 84-26-16 to prevent the inadvertent discharge of fire extinguishing bottles; [leaving the flight crew with less firefighting capability in the event of a real fire].

    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-2017-0518.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-16, Revision A, dated February 12, 2016. This service information describes procedures for locating and replacing certain 7.5-amp circuit breakers with 1-amp circuit breakers. 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 53 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
  • Replacement of Circuit Breakers 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $13,515
    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-2017-0518; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-167-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001, and 4003 through 4504 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire Protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the failure of the fire control amplifier (FCA), which was likely caused by an electrical short in a discharged squib for a fire extinguishing bottle. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the FCA and subsequent discharge of fire extinguishing bottles and false fire indications, leaving the flightcrew with less firefighting capability in the event of a real fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement of Affected Circuit Breakers

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 3 years, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Replace the 7.5-amp circuit breakers specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-16, Revision A, dated February 12, 2016, with 1-amp circuit breakers, part number MS3320-1, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-16, Revision A, dated February 12, 2016.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-16, dated August 14, 2015.

    (i) 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 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.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-25, dated September 5, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0518.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 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. 2017-10981 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0521; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-189-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 certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks in the engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) electrical fuel pump (EFP) cartridge/canister electrical connectors and conduits. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for fuel leakage at the engine and APU fuel pumps, and related investigative 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 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-2017-0521; 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:

    Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7367; 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-2017-0521; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-189-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-2016-32R1, dated October 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fuel leaks have been reported in the engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) electrical fuel pump (EFP) cartridge/canister electrical connectors and conduits on production aeroplanes. Initially, Bombardier had determined that the subject discrepancy was limited to the new pump canister installations on 24 production aeroplanes. Bombardier also reported the possibility of cut insulation on the electric harness wires of the newly installed canister housing assemblies.

    Emergency [Canadian] AD CF-2014-17 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-15-17, Amendment 39-17919 (79 FR 44268, July 31, 2014)] was issued to limit landing light operation on-ground in order to address a potential fire hazard as result of possible fuel leak from APU, EFP electrical conduit in the landing light compartment. In addition, [Canadian] AD CF-2014-21 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-20-01, Amendment 39-17974 (79 FR 59640, October 3, 2014), superseded by FAA AD 2016-10-10, Amendment 39-18521 (81 FR 31497, May 19, 2016)(“AD 2016-10-10”)] was issued to mandate removal of then identified 24 discrepant EFP canister assemblies from service.

    Bombardier has recently determined that the subject fuel leaks may not be limited to the 24 units affected by [Canadian] AD CF-2014-21 [(AD 2016-10-10)], but may potentially affect other in-service [Bombardier Model] CL-600-2B16 aeroplanes. Until such time that a final fix for the fuel leak problem is realized, Bombardier as an interim mitigating action, has issued [Service Bulletins] SB 604-28-022 and SB 605-28-010 that introduces [a] repeat [general visual] inspection and if required, rectification [related investigative and corrective actions] of subject fuel leaks on affected aeroplanes. [Canadian] AD CF-2016-32 was issued on 29 September 2016 to mandate compliance with applicable Bombardier SBs, to mitigate any potential safety hazard resulting from fuel leaks.

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is being issued to correct a typographic error in paragraph B.1. of the [Canadian AD] Corrective Actions.

    Related investigative actions involve, for certain airplanes, further inspections for fuel leakage. Corrective actions involve repair, and for certain other airplanes, those actions could include replacing O-rings, and replacing the fuel cartridge. 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-2017-0521.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued the following service bulletins:

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-28-022, dated October 19, 2015; and

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-010, dated October 19, 2015.

    The service information describes procedures for repetitive general visual inspections, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to airplanes in different configurations. 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 121 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
  • General Visual Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $10,285

    For Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, having serial numbers 5701 through 5955 inclusive, 5957, 5960 through 5966 inclusive, 5968 through 5971 inclusive, and 5981, we estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements 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 replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace O-Ring in Affected Pump 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $17 $272 Replace Cartridge in Affected Pump 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 8,618 8,788

    For Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes having serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, we have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    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-2017-0521; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-189-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 variants) airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5955 inclusive, 5957, 5960 Through 5966 inclusive, 5968 through 5971 inclusive, and 5981.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks in the engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) electrical fuel pump (EFP) cartridge/canister electrical connectors and conduits. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fuel leaks in certain fuel pumps to remove a potential fuel ignition hazard.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) General Visual Inspection and Corrective Action—Model CL-600-2B16 Airplanes, Serial Numbers 5301 Through 5665 Inclusive

    For Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, having serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive:

    Within 600 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do general visual inspections of the locations specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-28-022, dated October 19, 2015; except where the Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-28-022, dated October 19, 2015 specifies to contact the manufacturer, before further flight accomplish corrective action in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the general visual inspections at intervals not exceeding 600 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first.

    (1) Do a general visual inspection for traces of fuel coming from the right-hand side engine boost pump at the location of the belly fairing screw (FS412, BL 0.0).

    (2) Do a general visual inspection for traces of fuel coming from the left-hand side engine boost pump at the location of the belly fairing screw (FS412, BL 0.0).

    (3) Do a general visual inspection for traces of fuel coming from the EFP electrical wiring conduit outlet at the lower body fairing area for engine EFPs and at the right-hand landing light compartment for the APU EFP.

    (h) General Visual Inspection and Corrective Action—Model CL-600-2B16 Airplanes, Having Serial Numbers 5701 Through 5955 Inclusive, 5957, 5960 Through 5966 Inclusive, 5968 Through 5971 Inclusive, and 5981

    For Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, having serial numbers 5701 through 5955 inclusive, 5957, 5960 through 5966 inclusive, 5968 through 5971 inclusive, and 5981: Within 600 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do general visual inspections of the locations specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-010, dated October 19, 2015; except where Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-010, dated October 19, 2015 specifies to contact the manufacturer, before further flight accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the general visual inspections at intervals not exceeding 600 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first.

    (1) Do a general visual inspection for traces of fuel coming from the right-hand side engine boost pump at the location of the belly fairing screw (FS412, BL 0.0).

    (2) Do a general visual inspection for traces of fuel coming from the left-hand side engine boost pump at the location of the belly fairing screw (FS412, BL 0.0).

    (3) Do a general visual inspection of the right-hand side landing light compartment for traces of fuel coming from the APU EFP.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to 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.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-32R1, dated October 12, 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-2017-0521.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7367; fax 516-794-5531; email: [email protected]

    (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 19, 2017. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11002 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0438; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-6] Proposed Amendment VOR Federal Airways V-66, V-189, V-260, and V-266; in the Vicinity of Franklin, VA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-66, V-189, V-260, and V-266 in the Vicinity of Franklin, VA. The modifications are required due to the planned decommissioning of the Franklin, VA, VORTAC navigation aid which provides navigation guidance for portions of the above routes.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0438 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-6 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1 (800) 647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    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 FAA Order 7400.11A 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:

    Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    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 the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0438 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-6) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0438 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA, 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-66, V-189, V-260, and V-266 due to the planned decommissioning of the Franklin, VA, VORTAC. The proposed route changes are described below.

    V-66: V-66 currently extends between the Mission Bay, CA, VORTAC and the Franklin, VA, VORTAC. The amended route would be terminated on the east end at the Raleigh-Durham, NC, VORTAC instead of Franklin, VA.

    V-189: V-189 currently extends between the Wright Brothers, NC, VOR/DME and the Hopewell, VA, VORTAC. The amended route would be terminated at the Tar River, NC, VORTAC eliminating the segments to Franklin, VA and Hopewell, VA.

    V-260: V-260 currently extends between the Charleston, WV, VORTAC and the Cofield, NC, VORTAC. The amended route would be terminated at the Hopewell, VA, VORTAC, eliminating the segments to Franklin, VA and Cofield, NC.

    V-266: V-266 currently extends between the Electric City, SC, VORTAC and the Wright Brothers, NC, VOR/DME. The proposed amendment would remove the route segment between the South Boston, VA, VORTAC and the Elizabeth City, NC, VORTAC. The amended route would, therefore, extend between the Electric City, SC, VORTAC and the South Boston, VA, VORTAC; and between the Elizabeth City, NC, VORTAC and the Wright Brothers, NC, VOR/DME. Consequently, there would be a gap in the route between the South Boston, VA, VORTAC and the Elizabeth City, NC, VORTAC.

    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed 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

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways. V-66 [Amended]

    From Mission Bay, CA; Imperial, CA; 13 miles, 24 miles, 25 MSL; Bard, AZ; 12 miles, 35 MSL; INT Bard 089° and Gila Bend, AZ, 261° radials; 46 miles, 35 MSL; Gila Bend; Tucson, AZ, 7 miles wide (3 miles south and 4 miles north of centerline); Douglas, AZ; INT Douglas 064° and Columbus, NM, 277° radials; Columbus; El Paso, TX; 6 miles wide; INT El Paso 109° and Hudspeth, TX, 287° radials; 6 miles wide; Hudspeth; Pecos, TX; Midland, TX; INT Midland 083° and Abilene, TX, 252° radials; Abilene; to Millsap, TX. From Crimson, AL, Brookwood, AL; LaGrange, GA; INT LaGrange 120° and Columbus, GA, 068° radials; INT Columbus 068° and Athens, GA, 195° radials; Athens; Greenwood, SC; Sandhills, NC; to Raleigh-Durham, NC.

    V-189 [Amended]

    From Wright Brothers, NC; to Tar River, NC. The airspace within R-5302 and R-5314 is excluded when activated.

    V-260 [Amended]

    From Charleston, WV, Rainelle, WV; Roanoke, VA, Lynchburg, VA; Flat Rock, VA; Richmond, VA; to Hopewell, VA.

    V-266 [Amended]

    From Electric City, SC, to Spartanburg, SC. From Greensboro, NC; to South Boston, VA. From Elizabeth City, NC; to Wright Brothers, NC.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2017. Rodger A. Dean Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11080 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9473; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-7] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Cheyenne, WY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport (formerly, Cheyenne Airport), Cheyenne, WY. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Cheyenne instrument landing system (ILS) locator outer marker and removal of the Cheyenne VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) from the airspace description as the FAA transitions from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. Also, this action would update the airport name and geographic coordinates for Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9473; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11, 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 FAA Order 7400.11A 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 would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, Cheyenne, WY to support instrument flight rules operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9473/Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, Cheyenne, WY. This action would also update the airport name to Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport (from Cheyenne Airport).

    Class D airspace would be amended by removing the segment on each side of the Cheyenne ILS localizer east course extending from the 5.6-mile radius to the outer marker.

    Class E surface area airspace would be modified coincident with the Class D airspace, and effective during the times the Class D is not in effect.

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to within an 8.1-mile radius (from 12.2 miles) of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, and within a 9.1-mile radius of the airport from a 240° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 300° bearing from the airport with a segment on each side of a 275° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 9.1-mile radius to 10.6 miles west of the airport, and with another segment on each side of a 028° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 8.1 mile radius to 10.8 miles northeast of the airport. The airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 43.6 mile radius of the airport (from a polygon of similar area) to provide controlled airspace for diverse departures until reaching the overlying Class E airspace.

    This proposed airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Cheyenne ILS outer marker, removal of the Cheyenne VORTAC from the airspace description, and the availability of diverse departure headings as the FAA transitions from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. Also, this action would update the airport's geographic coordinates for Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database. Finally, this action would make an editorial change in the legal description by replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 14 CFR 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 5000 Class D Airspace. ANM WY D Cheyenne, WY [Amended] Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, WY (Lat. 41°09′20″ N., long. 104°48′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 8,700 feet MSL within a 5.6-mile radius of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM WY E2 Cheyenne, WY [Amended] Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, WY (Lat. 41°09′20″ N., long. 104°48′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.6-mile radius of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM WY E5 Cheyenne, WY [Amended] Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, WY (Lat. 41°09′20″ N., long. 104°48′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport from the 300° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 240° bearing, and within a 9.1-mile radius of the airport from the 240° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 300° bearing from the airport, and within 2.2 miles each side of the 275° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 9.1-mile radius to 10.6 miles west of the airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of a 028° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 8.1 mile radius to 10.8 miles northeast of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 43.6-mile radius 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. 2017-11079 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0315; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-5] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Dixon, WY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dixon Airport, Dixon, WY, 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.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0315; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    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 FAA Order 7400.11A 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 would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dixon Airport, Dixon, WY to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport for the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0315; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-5) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number).

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0315 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-5”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dixon Airport, Dixon, WY. Class E airspace would be established within a 7-mile radius of Dixon Airport with a segment 8 miles wide (4 miles each side of a 045° bearing from the airport) extending to 15.5 miles northeast of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.

    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 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    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, and is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 14 CFR 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 WY E5 Dixon, WY [New] Dixon Airport (Lat. 41°02′15″ N., long. 107°29′33″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-miles radius of the Dixon Airport, and within 4 miles each side of a 045° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 15.5 miles northeast 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. 2017-11078 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-460] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Acryl Fentanyl Into Schedule I AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this notice of intent to issue a temporary order to schedule the synthetic opioid, N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacrylamide (acryl fentanyl or acryloylfentanyl), into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of this synthetic opioid into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. When it is issued, the temporary scheduling order will impose the administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions and regulatory controls applicable to Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act on the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities, and chemical analysis of this synthetic opioid.

    DATES:

    The date of this notice of intent is June 2, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice of intent is issued pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intends to issue a temporary order to add acryl fentanyl to Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act.1 The temporary scheduling order will be published in the Federal Register, but that order will not be issued before July 3, 2017.

    1 Though DEA has used the term “final order” with respect to temporary scheduling orders in the past, this notice of intent adheres to the statutory language of 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which refers to a “temporary scheduling order.” No substantive change is intended.

    Legal Authority

    Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into Schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

    Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1); 21 CFR part 1308. The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

    Background

    Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance into Schedule I of the CSA.2 The Administrator transmitted notice of his intent to place acryl fentanyl in Schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS by letter dated April 17, 2017. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated May 2, 2017, and advised that based on a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are currently no investigational new drug applications or approved new drug applications for acryl fentanyl. The Assistant Secretary also stated that the HHS has no objection to the temporary placement of acryl fentanyl into Schedule I of the CSA. Acryl fentanyl is not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals are in effect for acryl fentanyl under section 505 of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 355. The DEA has found that the control of acryl fentanyl in Schedule I on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    2 As discussed in a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985. The Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993.

    To find that placing a substance temporarily into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).

    A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in Schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in Schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

    Acryl Fentanyl

    Acryl fentanyl was first described in 1981 in the scientific literature where its chemical structure and its in vivo antinociceptive effects were reported. No approved medical use has been identified for acryl fentanyl, nor has it been approved by the FDA for human consumption. The recent identification of acryl fentanyl in drug evidence and the identification of this substance in association with fatal overdose events indicate that this substance is being abused for its opioid properties.

    Available data and information for acryl fentanyl, summarized below, indicate that this synthetic opioid has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The DEA's three-factor analysis is available in its entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this action at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-460.

    Factor 4. History and Current Pattern of Abuse

    The recreational abuse of fentanyl-like substances continues to be a significant concern. These substances are distributed to users, often with unpredictable outcomes. Acryl fentanyl has recently been encountered by law enforcement and public health officials and the adverse health effects and outcomes are demonstrated by fatal overdose cases. The documented negative effects of acryl fentanyl are consistent with those of other opioids.

    On October 1, 2014, the DEA implemented STARLiMS (a web-based, commercial laboratory information management system) to replace the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) as its laboratory drug evidence data system of record. DEA laboratory data submitted after September 30, 2014, are reposited in STARLiMS. Data from STRIDE and STARLiMS were queried on May 5, 2017. STARLiMS registered 36 reports containing acryl fentanyl, from Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. According to STARLiMS, the first laboratory submission of acryl fentanyl occurred in July 2016 in Texas.

    The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by other federal, state and local forensic laboratories across the country. NFLIS registered 74 reports containing acryl fentanyl from state or local forensic laboratories in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin (query date: May 5, 2017).3 The first report of acryl fentanyl was reported in Wisconsin in May 2016. The DEA is not aware of any laboratory identifications of acryl fentanyl prior to 2016.

    3 Data are still being collected for February 2017-April 2017 due to the normal lag period for labs reporting to NFLIS.

    Evidence suggests that the pattern of abuse of fentanyl analogues, including acryl fentanyl, parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. Seizures of acryl fentanyl have been encountered in powder form, in solution, and packaged similar to that of heroin. Acryl fentanyl has been encountered as a single substance as well as in combination with other substances of abuse, including heroin, fentanyl, 4-fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl, and furanyl fentanyl. Acryl fentanyl has been connected to fatal overdoses, in which insufflation and intravenous routes of administration are documented.

    Factor 5. Scope, Duration and Significance of Abuse

    Reports collected by the DEA demonstrate acryl fentanyl is being abused for its opioid properties. This abuse of acryl fentanyl has resulted in morbidity and mortality (see DEA 3-Factor Analysis for full discussion). The DEA has received reports for at least 83 confirmed fatalities associated with acryl fentanyl. Information on these deaths, occurring as early as September 2016, was collected by the DEA from post-mortem toxicology and medical examiner reports. These deaths were reported from, and occurred in, Illinois (27), Maryland (22), New Jersey (1), Ohio (31), and Pennsylvania (2). NFLIS and STARLiMS have a total of 110 drug reports in which acryl fentanyl was identified in drug exhibits submitted to forensic laboratories in 2016 and 2017 from law enforcement encounters in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. It is likely that the prevalence of acryl fentanyl in opioid analgesic-related emergency room admissions and deaths is underreported as standard immunoassays may not differentiate this substance from fentanyl.

    The population likely to abuse acryl fentanyl overlaps with the population abusing prescription opioid analgesics, heroin, fentanyl, and other fentanyl-related substances. This is evidenced by the routes of drug administration and drug use history documented in acryl fentanyl fatal overdose cases and encounters of the substance by law enforcement officials. Because abusers of acryl fentanyl are likely to obtain this substance through unregulated sources, the identity, purity, and quantity are uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to the end user. Individuals who initiate (i.e. use a drug for the first time) acryl fentanyl abuse are likely to be at risk of developing substance use disorder, overdose, and death similar to that of other opioid analgesics (e.g., fentanyl, morphine, etc.).

    Factor 6. What, if Any, Risk There Is to the Public Health

    Acryl fentanyl exhibits pharmacological profiles similar to that of fentanyl and other µ-opioid receptor agonists. The toxic effects of acryl fentanyl in humans are demonstrated by overdose fatalities involving this substance. Abusers of acryl fentanyl may not know the origin, identity, or purity of this substance, thus posing significant adverse health risks when compared to abuse of pharmaceutical preparations of opioid analgesics, such as morphine and oxycodone.

    Based on information reviewed by the DEA, the misuse and abuse of acryl fentanyl leads to the same qualitative public health risks as heroin, fentanyl, and other opioid analgesic substances. As with any non-medically approved opioid, the health and safety risks for users are high. The public health risks attendant to the abuse of heroin and opioid analgesics are well established and have resulted in large numbers of drug treatment admissions, emergency department visits, and fatal overdoses.

    Acryl fentanyl has been associated with numerous fatalities. At least 83 confirmed overdose deaths involving acryl fentanyl abuse have been reported from Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in 2016 and 2017. As the data demonstrates, the potential for fatal and non-fatal overdoses exists for acryl fentanyl and acryl fentanyl poses an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    Finding of Necessity of Schedule I Placement To Avoid Imminent Hazard to Public Safety

    In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information, summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of acryl fentanyl poses an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for acryl fentanyl in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in Schedule I. Substances in Schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for acryl fentanyl indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated April 17, 2017, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place this substance in Schedule I.

    Conclusion

    This notice of intent initiates a temporary scheduling process and provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), of DEA's intent to issue a temporary scheduling order. In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule acryl fentanyl in Schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of this synthetic opioid substance into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary in order to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    The temporary placement of acryl fentanyl into Schedule I of the CSA will take effect pursuant to a temporary scheduling order, which will not be issued before July 3, 2017. Because the Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place acryl fentanyl into Schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the temporary order scheduling this substance will be effective on the date that order is published in the Federal Register, and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (2). It is the intention of the Administrator to issue a temporary scheduling order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. Upon publication of the temporary order, acryl fentanyl will then be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, research, conduct of instructional activities and chemical analysis, and possession of a Schedule I controlled substance.

    The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).

    Regulatory Matters

    Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for a temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in Schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary of HHS. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).

    Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator will take into consideration any comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary with regard to the proposed temporary scheduling order.

    Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This action 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

    PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 1308.11, add paragraph (h)(17) to read as follows:
    § 1308.11 Schedule I.

    (h) * * *

    (17) N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacrylamide, its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers (Other names: acryl fentanyl, acryloylfentanyl) (9811)
    Dated: May 24, 2017. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11215 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 158 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0683; FRL-9962-67] RIN 2070-AK00 Notification of Submission to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services; Pesticides; Technical Amendment to Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of submission to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services.

    SUMMARY:

    This document notifies the public as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator has forwarded to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a draft regulatory document concerning Pesticides; Technical Amendment to Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides. The draft regulatory document is not available to the public until after it has been signed and made available by EPA.

    DATES:

    See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0683, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cameo Smoot, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5454; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What action is EPA taking?

    Section 25(a)(2)(A) of FIFRA requires the EPA Administrator to provide the Secretary of USDA with a copy of any draft proposed rule at least 60 days before signing it in proposed form for publication in the Federal Register. Similarly, FIFRA section 21(b) requires the EPA Administrator to provide the Secretary of HHS with a copy of any draft proposed rule pertaining to a public health pesticide at least 60 days before publishing it in the Federal Register. The draft proposed rule is not available to the public until after it has been signed by EPA. If either Secretary comments in writing regarding the draft proposed rule within 30 days after receiving it, the EPA Administrator shall include the comments of the Secretary and the EPA Administrator's response to those comments with the proposed rule that publishes in the Federal Register. If either Secretary does not comment in writing within 30 days after receiving the draft proposed rule, the EPA Administrator may sign the proposed rule for publication in the Federal Register any time after the 30-day period.

    II. Do any Statutory and Executive Order reviews apply to this notification?

    No. This document is merely a notification of submission to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS. As such, none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document.

    Dated: May 17, 2017. Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11569 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 258 [EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0505; FRL-9962-17-Region 8] Determination To Approve Alternative Final Cover Request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, Montana, Landfill AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve an alternative final cover for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point landfill, a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and operated by the City of Wolf Point, Montana, on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Fort Peck Reservation in Montana. The EPA is seeking public comment on EPA's determination to approve the City of Wolf Point's alternative final cover proposal.

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are making the final determination to approve the alternative final cover for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point landfill, as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no relevant adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0505, by one of the following methods:

    • Online: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Michael Roach, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code: 8P-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.

    Hand delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Mail Code: 8P-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, which are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0505. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket without change and may be available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or by email. The http://regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA rather than going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be captured automatically and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact your for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. 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:

    Michael Roach, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, Mail Code: 8P-R, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202; telephone number: (303) 312-6369; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is promulgating a site-specific rule that approves an alternative final cover for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point landfill, a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and operated by the City of Wolf Point, Montana, on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Fort Peck Reservation in Montana, as a direct final rule. The EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe these actions are not controversial and do not expect relevant adverse comments. We have explained the reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    Unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comments that oppose the site-specific rule during the comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get relevant adverse comments that oppose the site-specific rule, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take immediate effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time

    Dated: April 17, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11228 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 8 and 20 [WC Docket No. 17-108; FCC 17-60] Restoring Internet Freedom AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to end the Commission's public-utility regulation of the Internet and seeks comment on returning to the bipartisan, light-touch regulatory framework that saw the free and open Internet flourish prior to the 2015 adoption of the Commission's Title II Order. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to return broadband Internet access service to its classification as an information service, return the classification of mobile broadband to its classification as a private mobile service, and eliminate the Internet standard. The NPRM also seeks comment whether the Commission should keep, modify, or eliminate the bright-line rules set forth in the Title II Order.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before July 17, 2017, and reply comments are due on or before August 16, 2017. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before August 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 17-108, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to [email protected] and to Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, at (202) 418-1580. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 17-108, adopted May 18, 2017 and released May 23, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is available on the Commission's Web site at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-60A1.docx.

    This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due August 1, 2017. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998), http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf.

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Parties who seek to file a large number of comments or “group” comments may do so through the public API or the Commission's electronic inbox established for this proceeding, called Restoring Internet Freedom Comments at https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom-comments. To ensure that bulk comments are properly recorded in ECFS, commenters must use the .CSV template provided.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Synopsis I. Introduction

    1. Americans cherish a free and open Internet. And for almost twenty years, the Internet flourished under a light-touch regulatory approach. It was a framework that our nation's elected leaders put in place on a bipartisan basis. President Clinton and a Republican Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which established the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

    2. During this time, the Internet underwent rapid, and unprecedented, growth. Internet service providers (ISPs) invested over $1.5 trillion in the Internet ecosystem and American consumers enthusiastically responded. Businesses developed in ways that the policy makers could not have fathomed even a decade ago. Google, Facebook, Netflix, and countless other online businesses launched in this country and became worldwide success stories. The Internet became an ever-increasing part of the American economy, offering new and innovative changes in how we work, learn, receive medical care, and entertain ourselves.

    3. But two years ago, the FCC changed course. It decided to apply utility-style regulation to the Internet. This decision represented a massive and unprecedented shift in favor of government control of the Internet.

    4. The Commission's Title II Order has put at risk online investment and innovation, threatening the very open Internet it purported to preserve. Investment in broadband networks declined. Internet service providers have pulled back on plans to deploy new and upgraded infrastructure and services to consumers. This is particularly true of the smallest Internet service providers that serve consumers in rural, low-income, and other underserved communities. Many good-paying jobs were lost as the result of these pull backs. And the order has weakened Americans' online privacy by stripping the Federal Trade Commission—the nation's premier consumer protection agency—of its jurisdiction over ISPs' privacy and data security practices.

    5. Today, we take a much-needed first step toward returning to the successful bipartisan framework that created the free and open Internet and, for almost twenty years, saw it flourish. By proposing to end the utility-style regulatory approach that gives government control of the Internet, we aim to restore the market-based policies necessary to preserve the future of Internet Freedom, and to reverse the decline in infrastructure investment, innovation, and options for consumers put into motion by the FCC in 2015. Our actions today continue our critical work to promote broadband deployment to rural consumers and infrastructure investment throughout our nation, to brighten the future of innovation both within networks and at their edge, and to close the digital divide.

    II. Ending Public-Utility Regulation of the Internet

    6. Between enactment of the Telecommunications Act and the 2015 adoption of the Title II Order, the free and open Internet flourished: Providers invested over $1.5 trillion to construct networks; high-speed Internet access proliferated at affordable rates; and consumers were able to enjoy all that the Internet had to offer. In 2015, the Commission abruptly departed from its prior posture and classified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to public-utility regulations under Title II.

    7. Today, we propose to reinstate the information service classification of broadband Internet access service and return to the light-touch regulatory framework first established on a bipartisan basis during the Clinton Administration. We also propose to reinstate the determination that mobile broadband Internet access service is not a commercial mobile service.

    A. Reinstating the Information Service Classification of Broadband Internet Access Service

    8. Our proposal to classify broadband Internet access service as an information service is based on a number of factors. First, we examine the text, structure, and history of the Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act, combined with the technical details of how the Internet works. Second, we examine Commission precedent. Third, we examine public policy and our goal of benefiting consumers through greater innovation, investment, and competition. We seek comment on our proposals and these analyses.

    1. The Text and Structure of the Act

    9. We start with the text of the Act itself. Section 3 of the Act defines an “information service” as “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.” Section 3 defines a “telecommunications service” as “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.” Section 3 also defines “telecommunications,” used in each of the prior two definitions, as “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.”

    10. We believe that Internet service providers offer the “capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications.” Whether posting on social media or drafting a blog, a broadband Internet user is able to generate and make available information online. Whether reading a newspaper's Web site or browsing the results from a search engine, a broadband Internet user is able to acquire and retrieve information online. Whether it's an address book or a grocery list, a broadband Internet user is able to store and utilize information online. Whether uploading filtered photographs or translating text into a foreign language, a broadband Internet user is able to transform and process information online. In short, broadband Internet access service appears to offer its users the “capability” to perform each and every one of the functions listed in the definition—and accordingly appears to be an information service by definition. We seek comment on this analysis. Can broadband Internet users indeed access these capabilities? Are there other capabilities that a broadband Internet user may receive with service? If broadband Internet access service does not afford one of the listed capabilities to users, what effect would that have on our statutory analysis? More fundamentally, we seek comment on how the Commission should assess whether a broadband provider is “offering” a capability. Should we assess this from the perspective of the user, from the provider, or through some other lens?

    11. In the Cable Modem Order, the Commission recognized that broadband Internet users often used services from third parties: “[S]ubscribers, by `click-through' access, may obtain many functions from companies with whom the cable operator has not even a contractual relationship. For example, a subscriber to Comcast's cable modem service may bypass that company's web browser, proprietary content, and email. The subscriber is free to download and use instead, for example, a web browser from Netscape, content from Fox News, and email in the form of Microsoft's `Hotmail.'” It nonetheless found the classification appropriate “regardless of whether subscribers use all of the functions provided as part of the service, such as email or web-hosting, and regardless of whether every cable modem service provider offers each function that could be included in the service.” In the Title II Order, the Commission in turn found that “consumers are very likely to use their high-speed Internet connections to take advantage of competing services offered by third parties” and asserted the service “is useful to consumers today primarily as a conduit for reaching modular content, applications, and services that are provided by unaffiliated third parties.” We seek comment on how consumers are using broadband Internet access service today. It appears that, as in 2002 and 2013, broadband Internet users “obtain many functions from companies” other than their Internet service provider. It also appears that many broadband Internet users rely on services, such as Domain Name Service (DNS) and email, from their ISP. Is that correct? If not, what services are broadband Internet users accessing from what providers? More generally, we seek comment on the relevance of this analysis. The definition of “information service” speaks to the “capability” to perform certain functions. Is a consumer capable of accessing these online services without Internet access service? Could a consumer access these online services using traditional telecommunications services like telephone service or point-to-point special access? (In the past, rate-of-return carriers have offered broadband Internet access transmission service as a common-carriage last-mile service that transmits data between and end user and an ISP. Absent an ISP at the other end, however, broadband Internet access transmission service only transmits data to a carrier's central office (or other aggregation point) as it does not itself offer the capabilities that come with Internet access.) Or are we correct that offering Internet access is precisely what makes the service capable of “generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information” to consumers?

    12. In contrast, Internet service providers do not appear to offer “telecommunications,” i.e., “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received,” to their users. For one, broadband Internet users do not typically specify the “points” between and among which information is sent online. Instead, routing decisions are based on the architecture of the network, not on consumers' instructions, and consumers are often unaware of where online content is stored. Domain names must be translated into IP addresses (and there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two). Even IP addresses may not specify where information is transmitted to or from because caching servers store and serve popular information to reduce network loads. In short, broadband Internet users are paying for the access to information “with no knowledge of the physical location of the server where that information resides.” We believe that consumers want and pay for these functionalities that go beyond mere transmission—and that they have come to expect them as part and parcel of broadband Internet access service. We seek comment on our analysis. How are broadband Internet users' requests for information handled by Internet service providers today? What functionalities beyond mere transmission do Internet service providers incorporate into their broadband Internet access service? We particularly seek comment on the Title II Order's assertion that the phrase “points specified by the user” is ambiguous—how should we interpret that phrase so that it carries with it independent meaning and is not mere surplusage? Is it enough, as the Title II Order asserted, for a broadband Internet user to specify the information he is trying to access but not the “points” between or among which the information will be transmitted? Does it matter that the Internet service provider specifies the points between and among which information will be transmitted? (We note that the Title II Order asserted that “[i]t is not uncommon in the toll-free arena for a single number to route to multiple locations, and such a circumstance does not transform that service to something other than telecommunications.” Despite that assertion, the Commission has expressly found that the management of toll-free numbers is “not a common carrier service” and that providers that manage toll-free numbers “do not need to be carriers.”).

    13. For another, Internet service providers routinely change the form or content of the information sent over their networks—for example, by using firewalls to block harmful content or using protocol processing to interweave IPv4 networks with IPv6 networks. The Commission has acknowledged that broadband Internet networks must be reasonably managed since at least the 2005 Internet Policy Statement. We believe that consumers want and pay for these functionalities that go beyond mere transmission—and that they have come to expect them as part and parcel of broadband Internet access service. We seek comment on our analysis. What constitutes a “change in the form” of information? If not the protocol-processing for internetworking or other protocol-processing performed as part of Internet access service, how should we interpret this phase so it carries with it independent meaning and is not mere surplusage? How could we plausibly conclude that it is not a “change in the . . . content” to use firewalls and other reasonable network management tools to shield broadband Internet users from unwanted intrusions and thereby alter what information reaches the user for the user's benefit? We seek comment on other ways in which Internet service providers change the form or content of information to facilitate a broadband Internet user's experience online.

    14. Other provisions of the Act appear to confirm our analysis that broadband Internet access services should be classified as information services. For instance, section 230 defines an interactive computer service to mean “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” On its face, the plain language of this provision deems Internet access service an information service. We seek comment on this analysis, on the language of section 230, and on how it should impact our classification of broadband Internet access service.

    15. Section 231 is even more direct. It expressly states that “Internet access service” “does not include telecommunications services.” And it defines Internet access service as one offering many capabilities (like an information service): “a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers.” Although inserted into the Communications Act one year after the Telecommunications Act's passage and previously interpreted to “clarify that section 231 was not intended to impair our or a state commission's ability to regulate basic telecommunications services,” this language on its face makes clear that Internet access service is not a telecommunications service. We seek comment on this analysis, on the language of section 231, and on how it should impact our classification of broadband Internet access service.

    16. The structure of Title II appears to be a poor fit for broadband Internet access service. In the Title II Order, the Commission, on its own motion, forbore either in whole or in part on a permanent or temporary basis from 30 separate sections of Title II as well as from other provisions of the Act and Commission rules. The significant forbearance the Commission granted in the Title II Order suggests the highly prescriptive regulatory framework of Title II is unsuited for the dynamic broadband Internet access service marketplace. We seek comment on this analysis, and on what weight we should give this analysis in examining the future of this model of regulation.

    17. The purposes of the Telecommunications Act appear to be better served by classifying broadband Internet access service as an information service. Congress passed the Telecommunications Act to “promote competition and reduce regulation” and “[n]othing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services.” Or as Senator John McCain put it, “[i]t certainly was not Congress's intent in enacting the supposedly pro-competitive, deregulatory 1996 Act to extend the burdens of current Title II regulation to Internet services, which historically have been excluded from regulation.” Or as Congress codified its intent in section 230: It is the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” An information service classification would “reduce regulation” and preserve a free market “unfettered by Federal or State regulation”—but a telecommunications service classification would not. Indeed, as Judge Brown of the D.C. Circuit recently noted, “[b]y incorporating [the] FCC's distinction between `enhanced service' and `basic service' into the statutory scheme, and by placing Internet access on the `enhanced service' side, Congress prohibited the FCC from construing the `offering' of `telecommunications service' to be the `information service' of Internet access.” We seek comment on this analysis, as well as whether there are any other provisions of the Communications Act or Telecommunications Act that establish congressional intent with respect to the appropriate regulatory framework for broadband Internet access services.

    18. More broadly, we seek comment on the text, structure, and purposes of the Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act, as well as any additional facts about what Internet service providers offer, how broadband Internet access service works, and what broadband Internet users expect that might inform our analysis.

    19. We seek special comment on two aspects of the Title II Order's interpretation of the Act. First, the Title II Order claimed its interpretation sprang in part from a change in “broadband providers' marketing and pricing strategies, which emphasize speed and reliability of transmission separately from and over the extra features of the service packages they offer.” It claimed this marketing “leaves a reasonable consumer with the impression that a certain level of transmission capability—measured in terms of `speed' or `reliability'—is being offered in exchange for the subscription fee, even if complementary services are also included as part of the offer.” We note that even before the Cable Modem Order, the Commission recognized that Internet service providers marketed the speed of their connections. We seek comment on whether Internet service providers' marketing has decidedly changed in recent decades. More generally, we seek comment on the relevance of this argument. Neither statutory service definition speaks of speed or reliability, and there is little reason to think consumers might want a fast or reliable “transmission . . . of information” but not a fast or reliable “capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information.” Indeed, many of the advertisements discussed by the Title II Order speak directly to the capabilities offered through high-speed service. We seek comment on this analysis and on any other relevant facts regarding whether broadband Internet users receive the capabilities of an information service or the mere transmission between points of a user's choosing of a telecommunications service.

    20. Second, the Title II Order found that DNS and caching used in broadband Internet access service were just used “for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.” The Commission has previously held this category applies to “adjunct-to-basic” functions that are “incidental” to a telecommunications service's underlying use and “do not alter [its] fundamental character.” As such, these functions generally are not “useful to end users, rather than carriers.” We seek comment on how DNS and caching functions are now used, whether they benefit end users, Internet service providers, or both, and whether they fit within the adjunct-to-basic exception. How would broadband Internet access service work without DNS or caching? Would removing DNS have a merely incidental effect on broadband Internet users, or would it fundamentally change their online experience? Absent caching, would broadband Internet users that now expect high-quality video streaming see only incidental changes or more fundamental changes? Are there other ways that DNS or caching are used for “for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system”? Are there any other aspects of the Title II Order's treatment of DNS or caching that should be reconsidered here?

    2. Commission Precedent Supports Classification as an Information Service

    21. Our proposed classification of broadband Internet access service as an information service is firmly rooted in Commission precedent. For two decades, a consistent bipartisan framework supported a free and open Internet. That same consensus led to six separate Commission decisions confirming that Internet access service is an information service, subject to Title I. Chairman Kennard first led the FCC in determining that Internet access service is an information service in the Stevens Report. Chairman Powell led the Commission to classify broadband Internet access service over cable systems as an information service in the Cable Modem Order. Chairman Martin led the Commission to classify several broadband Internet access services as information services in the Wireline Broadband Classification Order, the BPL-Enabled Broadband Order, and the Wireless Broadband Internet Access Order. Finally, Chairman Genachowski declined to reclassify broadband Internet access services in the Open Internet Order.

    22. We believe the Commission under Democratic and Republican leadership alike was correct in these decisions to classify broadband Internet access service as an information service and that, 20 years after the passage of the Telecommunications Act, we should be reluctant to second-guess the interpretations of those more likely to understand the contemporary meaning of the terms of the Telecommunications Act. We seek comment on our assessment. Did the Commission's historical information service classification better enable flexibility in marketplace offerings? Did the regulatory certainty of maintaining the same regulatory environment for approximately three decades (since the Computer Inquiries) foster additional investment or innovative business models to benefit consumers? How should we evaluate the prior Commissions' predictions of intermodal competition given the 4,559 Internet service providers now in the market? How many providers would likely have entered the market if traditional Title II regulation had been the norm? What actual harms, if any, resulted from light-touch regulation?

    23. The Commission has previously concluded that Congress formally codified information services and telecommunications services as two, mutually exclusive types of service in the Telecommunications Act. The Title II Order did not appear to disagree with this analysis, finding that broadband Internet access service was a telecommunications service and not an information service. We believe this conclusion regarding mutual exclusivity is correct based on the text and history of the Act. We seek comment on this analysis.

    24. The Commission has previously found that Congress intended the definitions of information service and telecommunications service in the Act to parallel those definitions in the MFJ and in the Computer Inquiries. The Title II Order apparently accepted these parallels. We thus seek comment on any evidence that the court in the MFJ thought that Internet access service was a telecommunications service. Did the court and the Department of Justice intend to exclude Internet access services from the prohibitions on what Bell Operating Companies could offer? Did the court and the Department of Justice intend for Internet access services to be regulated via tariff (as other telecommunications services were)? We similarly seek comment on any evidence that the Commission in the Computer Inquiries thought that Internet access service was a basic service. Did the Commission intend for facilities-based carriers to offer Internet access service without the protections of the Computer Inquiries (as they could for basic services)? The Supreme Court has said that statutory interpretation “must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency.” How is that canon relevant here?

    25. Finally, the Title II Order deviated further from Commission precedent to extend its authority to Internet traffic exchange or “interconnection,” an area historically unregulated and beyond the Commission's reach. We believe Internet traffic exchange, premised on privately negotiated agreements or case-by-case basis, is not a telecommunications service. Moreover, we find nothing in the Act that would extend our jurisdiction as previously suggested by the Title II Order. We further do not believe there exists any non-Title II basis for the Commission to exercise ongoing regulatory oversight over Internet traffic exchange. We accordingly propose to relinquish any authority over Internet traffic exchange. We seek comment on the consequences and implications of relinquishing the Commission's regulatory authority in this manner.

    26. We note that the Commission's Title II Order also went well beyond agency precedent in important ways. For instance, the Commission did not limit its analysis to the “last mile” connections at issue in the Brand X and the FCC's underlying proceeding in that case. Rather, the Commission's Title II Order defined Internet access service as extending far deeper into the network. We seek comment on the significance of this expansive departure from agency precedent.

    3. Public Policy Supports Classification as an Information Service

    27. The Commission's decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to Title II regulation has resulted in negative consequences for American consumers—including depressed broadband investment and reduced innovation because of increased regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty stemming from the rules adopted under Title II. As providers have devoted more resources to complying with new regulations, the threat of regulatory enforcement of vague rules and standards has dampened providers' incentive to invest and innovate. Additionally, although reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service has led to significant regulatory burdens, it has not solved any discrete, identifiable problems. Restoring broadband Internet access service to its previous status as an information service subject to Title I is in the public interest because it will alleviate the harms caused by Title II reclassification. We seek detailed comment on this analysis below.

    28. Following the 2014 Notice and in the lead up to the Title II Order, Internet service providers stated that the increased regulatory burdens of Title II classification would lead to depressed investment. Recent data indicate how accurate those predictions were. A recent study indicates that capital expenditure from the nation's twelve largest Internet service providers has fallen by $3.6 billion, a 5.6% decline relative to 2014 levels. Another study indicated that between 2011 and 2015, the threat of reclassification reduced telecommunications investment by about 20-30%, or about $30-40 billion annually. Other sources also explain that other countries' experiences should caution the United States that ongoing utility-style regulation should be expected to have even more dramatic impacts on investment beyond what has already occurred. Other interested parties have come to different conclusions. (Free Press, Internet Service Providers' Capital Expenditures (Feb. 28, 2017), (noting a decrease in investment from 2015 to 2016, but claiming an increase in investment in the 2-year period of 2015-16 compared to 2013-14). We observe, however, that these figures showing increased investment do not incorporate the generally accepted accounting practice of maintaining consistency over time, as they include AT&T's foreign capital expenditures in Mexico as well as expenditures related to DirectTV, and do not adjust for Sprint's changed accounting treatment of leased handset devices from an operating expense to a capital expense.).

    29. We believe that these reduced expenditures are a direct and unavoidable result of Title II reclassification, and exercise our predictive judgment that reversing the Title II classification and restoring broadband Internet access service to a Title I service will increase investment. Among other things, Internet service providers have finite resources, and requiring providers to divert some of those resources to newly imposed regulatory requirements adopted under Title II will, unsurprisingly, reduce expenditures that benefit consumers. We seek comment on how the burdens associated with Title II regulation have impacted broadband investment and, as a result, consumers. Has the Commission's increased regulation of broadband adversely impacted broadband investment and innovation? What impact has Title II reclassification had on providers' business models, including any lost opportunity costs, and how has this impact been passed on to consumers? Is there any evidence that increased regulation has promoted broadband investment, as some claim? What are the long-term implications of utility-style regulation with respect to capital expenditures on high-speed networks?

    30. We also seek specific comment on how the classification of broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service has impacted smaller broadband Internet access service providers, many of whom lack the dedicated compliance staffs and financial resources of the nation's largest providers. Before the Commission adopted the Title II Order, many small providers made it clear that reclassification would harm their businesses and the customers they serve. Since reclassification, small providers—including non-profit, municipal ISPs—have been forced to reduce their investment and halt the expansion of their networks, and slow, if not delay, the development and deployment of innovative new offerings. For example, one small ISP had planned to “triple the number of new base stations” that would be deployed each month to provide fixed wireless broadband service to new customers, but put those plans on hold as a result of the Commission's reclassification. Other small providers have had to modify or abandon altogether past business models to account for increased compliance costs and depressed investment from outside investors. This depressed investment has had particularly strong impacts on the deployment of broadband to previously unserved and rural areas. What other impacts have small providers felt as a result of reclassification? Have there been any corresponding benefits for small providers?

    31. In addition to imposing significant regulatory costs on Internet service providers, Title II reclassification created significant regulatory uncertainty. USTelecom specifically identified “regulatory uncertainty” as one of the causes of reduced investment. Regulatory uncertainty may have particularly significant effects on small Internet service providers, which may be poorly equipped to address the legal, technical, and financial burdens associated with an uncertain regulatory environment. That uncertainty has directly led to reduced investment, which has harmed consumers. We seek comment on what other effects regulatory uncertainty has had on broadband Internet access service providers' investment decisions.

    32. We also seek comment on other consumer benefits that would result from restoring broadband Internet access service classification to an information service, rather than subjecting these services to utility-style regulation. We note that increased investment is likely to lead to a faster closing of the digital divide for rural and low-income consumers, higher speeds and more competition for all consumers, as well as more affordable prices. We seek comment on the magnitude of these effects, and what further steps the Commission should take to maximize facilities-based investment and competition. Specifically, we seek comment on the trade-offs from changing the classification status. We also seek comment more broadly on the effects on innovation of regulatory uncertainty, and other examples of reduced innovation from Internet service providers as a result of the Title II classification.

    33. We also seek comment on specific ways in which consumers were harmed under the light-touch regulatory framework that existed before the Commission's Title II Order. Much of the Title II Order focused extensively on hypothetical actions Internet service providers “might” take, and how those actions “might” harm consumers, but the Title II Order only articulated four examples of actions Internet service providers arguably took to justify its adoption of the Internet conduct standard under Title II. Do these isolated examples justify the regulatory shift that Title II reclassification entailed? Do such isolated examples constitute market failure sufficient to warrant pre-emptive, industry-wide regulation? Were pre-existing federal and state competition and consumer protection regimes, in addition to private sector initiatives, insufficient to address such isolated examples, and if so, why? What are the costs and benefits of pre-emptive, industry-wide regulation in such circumstances? In particular, does that approach deter competition and competitive entry, and does it have unintended consequences with respect to infrastructure investment? Do those unintended consequences outweigh any purported benefits in addressing such isolated cases pre-emptively? Is there evidence of actual harm to consumers sufficient to support maintaining the Title II telecommunications service classification for broadband Internet access service? Is there any evidence that the likelihood of these events occurring decreased with the shift to Title II?

    34. Conversely, what, if any, changes have been made as a result of Title II reclassification that have had a positive impact on consumers? Was Title II reclassification necessary for any of those changes to occur? Is there any evidence, for example, that consumers' online experiences and Internet access have improved due to policies adopted in the Title II Order?

    4. The Commission Has Legal Authority To Classify Broadband Internet Access Service as an Information Service

    35. As the D.C. Circuit has held, “[i]t is axiomatic that administrative agencies may issue regulations only pursuant to authority delegated to them by Congress.” And that authority is not unbounded. The Commission has authority, as the Supreme Court recognized in Brand X, to interpret the Communications Act, including ambiguous definitional provisions. However, when interpreting a statute it administers, the Commission, like all agencies, “must operate `within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.' And reasonable statutory interpretation must account for both `the specific context in which . . . language is used' and `the broader context of the statute as a whole.' ”

    36. An agency also is free to change its approach to interpreting and implementing a statute so long as it acknowledges that it is doing so and justifies the new approach. Evaluating the change in regulatory approach in the Title II Order, the D.C. Circuit majority in USTelecom applied a “highly deferential standard” to the agency's predictive judgments regarding the investment effects of reclassification, and deferred to the Commission's “`evaluat[ion of] complex market conditions'” underlying its rejection of providers' reliance interests in the prior classification. D.C. Circuit precedent also recognizes, however, that should the Commission's predictions “prove erroneous, the Commission will need to reconsider” the associated regulatory actions “in accordance with its continuing obligation to practice reasoned decision-making.” We believe that the Commission's predictions and expectations regarding broadband investment and the nature and effects of reclassification on the operation of the marketplace were mistaken and have not been borne out by subsequent events. Moreover, we believe that a restoration of the information service classification for broadband Internet access service is likely to increase infrastructure investment. In such a case, principles of administrative law give us more than ample latitude to revisit our approach. We seek comment on this overall approach, and we seek comment on these specific issues in the sections below.

    37. Even more fundamentally, we believe that the Commission's statutory interpretation in the Title II Order did not adequately reflect proper standards of statutory construction, and that classifying broadband Internet access service as an information service is the better reading of the statute, independent of the factual developments subsequent to the Title II Order. We note that the Supreme Court has expressly upheld the Commission's prior information service classification. We seek comment on this analysis. Although the Title II Order's telecommunications service classification was upheld in USTelecom, the court emphasized that it “sit[s] to resolve only legal questions presented and argued by the parties,'” and not “`arguments a party could have made but did not.” Many arguments as to why an information service classification of broadband Internet access service reflects the better reading of ambiguous provisions of the Act were not addressed by the court because the arguments were raised in support of a claim that the Act unambiguously required a particular service classification. (Or, in other cases they were not addressed at all. rejecting arguments that information service classification was unambiguously required based on the text, structure, and purpose of the Act; highlighting the limited ways in which USTelecom challenged the Title II Order for failing to demonstrate that the NARUC test for common carriage was met; rejecting arguments that the statute completely precludes the Commission from defining “public switched network” more broadly than the public switched telephone network; rejecting arguments that the statute necessarily compels the Commission to distinguish between “mobile broadband alone enabling a connection” and “mobile broadband enabling a connection through use of adjunct applications such as VoIP”). Thus, although we are in any case free to revisit previously affirmed interpretations of ambiguous statutory language, we note that the USTelecom decision did not reach many aspects of the statutory analysis we propose here. We seek comment on this analysis and on our reasoning that the statutory interpretation proposed in this NPRM more faithfully adheres to the Act and reflects the better reading of the relevant provisions than the views adopted in the Title II Order.

    B. Reinstating the Private Mobile Service Classification of Mobile Broadband Internet Access Service

    38. We propose to classify all broadband Internet access services—both fixed and mobile—as information services. With respect to mobile broadband Internet access service, we further propose to return it to its original classification as a private mobile service, and in conjunction to revisit the elements of the Title II Order that modified or reinterpreted key terms in section 332 of the Act and our implementing rules. We seek comment on that proposal, including on the specific issues discussed below. We also generally seek comment on whether certain and, if so, which, aspects of the D.C. Circuit's analysis of mobile broadband Internet access service in USTelecom necessitate modifications or additions to the Commission's proposals with respect to mobile broadband Internet access service here. We also seek comment on the scope of the authority delegated by sections 332(d)(1) through (3) to the Commission to define or specify the terms used in section 332 and discussed below.

    39. We propose to restore the meaning of “public switched network” under section 332(d)(2) to its pre-Title II Order focus on the traditional public switched telephone network. We find persuasive the Commission's reasoning when originally adopting the prior definition, which also appears more consistent with the historical usage of the term “public switched network,” appears to better accord with the text of section 332(d)(2) by clearly covering only a single, integrated network, and was not disturbed by Congress in amendments to section 332 of the Act. We seek comment on this analysis and our proposed approach.

    40. We also propose to return to our prior definition of “interconnected service” by restoring the word “all” in the codified definition. Although the court in USTelecom found the deletion of “all” to be “of no consequence” to the reclassification of mobile broadband Internet access service, it did so based on an argument that the Commission never mentioned in its brief—namely, that mobile broadband users can reach telephone customers “via VoIP” and that this determination is sufficient (regardless of the deletion of the word “all”) to render mobile broadband Internet access service interconnected with the public switched network. We seek comment on that view and whether the Commission erred in 2015 by modifying the definition based on the view that two separate networks can be interconnected if they do not allow all users to communicate with each other. (Had all the elements of the Title II Order's mobile broadband Internet access service classification remained, a future Commission might have incentives to continue pursuing such an approach to avoid the potentially absurd result that traditional wireless voice service no longer constituted commercial mobile service. While not finding it a sufficient basis to reject the Title II Order's treatment of mobile broadband Internet access service, the D.C. Circuit acknowledged the possibility that the revised definition of public switched network raised questions about whether traditional wireless voice service was sufficiently interconnected with the public switched network to still constitute a commercial mobile service.) The FCC's prior decision in this respect appears to run contrary to the focus on a single, integrated network that we believe Congress likely intended in section 332(d)(2). We seek comment on these views. In the Title II Order, the Commission noted that the prior definition of “interconnected service” would encompass a service that “provides general access to points on the PSN [but] also restricts calling in certain limited ways” (such as blocking of 900 numbers), but cited no evidence that the prior definition led to any confusion. We question the need for changes to the prior definition to account for that limited exception to general access, but nonetheless seek comment on whether modified rule language is warranted, and if so, what language targeted narrowly to that issue should be incorporated.

    41. We also seek comment on whether any other interpretations of section 332 or our implementing rules from the Title II Order should be revisited here in connection with our proposed classification of mobile broadband Internet access service. For example, would a narrower interpretation of “capability” for purposes of the definition of “interconnected service” under our rules be warranted based on the Act or the regulatory history of that language? Are there other interpretations that should be reconsidered? In addition to the changes to the definitions in section 20.3 of the rules discussed above, would any additional changes to our codified rules be warranted?

    42. In applying the definitions and interpretations of key terms in section 332 and our implementing rules under the proposals above, we also propose to reach the same conclusions regarding the application of those terms to mobile broadband Internet access service as we did in the Wireless Broadband Internet Access Order. We seek comment on that proposal and whether there have been any material changes in technology, the marketplace, or other facts that would warrant refinement or revision of any of that analysis.

    43. Furthermore, insofar as mobile broadband Internet access service is best interpreted to be an information service, we believe that likely also would counsel in favor of classifying it as a private mobile service to avoid the inconsistency of the service being both an information service and a common carrier service. The Commission explained this reasoning when originally classifying mobile broadband Internet access service as both an information service and a private mobile service, and we propose to apply that same reasoning again here. We seek comment on this proposal.

    44. We also believe that mobile broadband Internet access service is not the “functional equivalent” of commercial mobile service, and seek comment on that view. The Commission previously has observed, in light of Congress's determinations in section 332, that “very few mobile services that do not meet the definition of CMRS will be a close substitute for a commercial mobile radio service.” By contrast, we are concerned that the Title II Order's test, which focuses on whether the service merely “enables ubiquitous access to the vast majority of the public,” would eviscerate the statutory scheme. We believe that the standard for demonstrating functional equivalency under our rules is instead more likely to properly implement section 332(d)(3) of the Act, and we thus propose to reconsider the Title II Order's position that the Commission is free to depart from that standard. In addition, the Title II Order made no claim that the functional equivalency standard in our rules was met by mobile broadband Internet access service, and we similarly propose here that it does not meet that standard. We seek comment on these proposals and on any other or different definition of “functional equivalent” that the FCC should adopt.

    45. Given the apparent historical success of the wireless marketplace prior to the Title II Order, we anticipate that returning mobile broadband Internet access service to its original classification of a private mobile service and restoring prior definitions and interpretations of key concepts in section 332 is likely to substantially benefit the wireless marketplace and consumers and have few, if any, policy disadvantages. We seek comment on this view. To the extent any commenters believe that these proposals will have negative policy consequences, we seek specific information regarding the scope or significance of any such consequences and whether they can be mitigated in whole or in part through modifications to our proposals.

    C. Effects on Regulatory Structures Created by the Title II Order

    46. The Title II Order imposed additional regulatory frameworks under Title II, including forbearance and privacy. We seek comment on how we should treat those structures and proceedings moving forward.

    47. Forbearance. If we adopt our lead proposal to remove the Title II reclassification of broadband Internet access service, what effect does that action have on the provisions of the Act from which the Commission forbore in the Title II Order? We believe that restoring the classification status of broadband Internet access service to an information service will render any additional forbearance moot in most cases. We seek comment on this analysis. At the same time, we seek comment on whether, with respect to broadband Internet access service, the Commission should maintain and extend forbearance to even more provisions of Title II as a way of further ensuring that our decision in this proceeding will prove to reduce regulatory burdens.

    48. We also seek comment on the effect of reinstating an information service classification on providers that voluntarily offered broadband transmission on a common carrier basis under the Wireline Broadband Classification Order framework. The Title II Order allowed such providers to opt-in to the Title II Order's forbearance framework. Should providers voluntarily electing to offer broadband transmission on a common carrier basis be able to do so under the Title II Order's forbearance framework if we reclassify broadband Internet access service as an information service? If not, what transition mechanisms are required for such providers that opted-in to the Title II Order's forbearance framework to enable them to revert back to the Wireline Broadband Classification Order framework? Should we extend forbearance to any other rules or statutory provisions for carriers that choose to offer broadband transmission on a common carrier basis?

    49. Section 222 Regulations. Historically, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) protected the privacy of broadband consumers, policing every online company's privacy practices consistently and initiating numerous enforcement actions. When the Commission reclassified broadband Internet access service as a common carriage telecommunications service in 2015, however, that action stripped FTC authority over Internet service providers because the FTC is prohibited from regulating common carriers. (One Ninth Circuit case held that the common carrier exemption precluded FTC oversight of ISPs that otherwise were common carriers with respect to non ISP services. As the FCC recently explained in that case, the panel decision erred by overlooking the textual relationship between the statutes governing the FTC's and FCC's jurisdiction. The FCC's letter called on the Ninth Circuit to grant rehearing, which it recently did, and in doing so it set aside the earlier and erroneous panel opinion. The recent en banc order by the Ninth Circuit means that the Title II Order's reclassification of broadband Internet access service serves as the only limit on the authority of the FTC to oversee the conduct of Internet service providers). To address the gap created by the Commission's reclassification of broadband Internet access service as a common carriage service, the Title II Order called for a new rulemaking to apply section 222's customer proprietary network information provisions to Internet service providers. In October 2016, the Commission adopted rules governing Internet service providers' privacy practices and applied the rules it adopted to other providers of telecommunications services. In March 2017, Congress voted under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove the Commission's 2016 Privacy Order, which prevents us from adopting rules in substantially the same form.

    50. We propose to respect the jurisdictional lines drawn by Congress whereby the FTC oversees Internet service providers' privacy practices, given its decades of experience and expertise in this area. We seek comment on this proposal.

    51. Lifeline. We propose to maintain support for broadband in the Lifeline program after reclassification. In the Universal Service Transformation Order, the Commission recognized that “[s]ection 254 grants the Commission the authority to support not only voice telephony service but also the facilities over which it is offered” and “allows us to . . . require carriers receiving federal universal service support to invest in modern broadband-capable networks.” Accordingly, as the Commission did in the Universal Service Transformation Order, we propose requiring Lifeline carriers to use Lifeline support “for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading” of broadband services and facilities capable of providing supported services. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on any rule changes necessary to effectuate this change in our underlying authority to support broadband for low-income individuals and families.

    52. Other. Beyond the issues raised above, we seek comment on the impact of reclassification on other Commission proceedings and proposals. For instance, how should we take into account our proposed reclassification in our proposals with respect to pole attachments and our inquiries with respect to preemption under section 253 of the Act? How should the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee factor in the reduced regulatory burdens and increased investment that we anticipate will flow from reclassification? More generally, if broadband Internet access service is classified as an interstate information service, how would that impact jurisdiction? We encourage commenters to offer specific recommendations as to how we can leverage our proposed reclassification in other proceedings to further encourage broadband deployment to all Americans.

    III. A Light-Touch Regulatory Framework

    53. Proposing to restore broadband Internet access service to its long-established classification as an information service reflects our commitment to a free and open Internet. Indeed, our lead proposal reaffirms the long-standing, bipartisan consensus begun in the Clinton Administration by restoring the Internet to the dynamic state that allowed it to flourish prior to the Title II Order. To determine how to best honor our commitment to restoring the free and open Internet, we propose re-evaluating the Commission's existing rules and enforcement regime to analyze whether ex ante regulatory intervention in the market is necessary. To the extent we decide to retain any of the Commission's ex ante regulations, we seek comment on whether, and how, we should modify them, specifically considering different approaches such as self-governance or ex post enforcement that may effectuate our goals better than across-the-board rules. Finally, we discuss the Commission's legal authority to adopt rules governing Internet service provider practices.

    A. Re-Evaluating the Existing Rules and Enforcement Regime

    54. Below, we explore the best method to restore the long-standing consensus under both Democratic and Republican-led Commissions, represented by the four Internet Freedoms, that consumers should have access to the content, applications, and devices of their choosing as well as meaningful information about their service, all without deterring the investment and innovation that has allowed the Internet to flourish. We examine these freedoms and the Commission's current rules related to them, and for each, ask whether we should keep, modify, or eliminate them.

    1. Eliminating the Internet Conduct Standard

    55. In the Title II Order, the Commission created a catch-all standard intended to prohibit “current or future practices that cause the type of harms [the Commission's] rules are intended to address.” This standard allows the Commission to prohibit practices that it determines unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers to reach the Internet content, services, and applications of their choosing or of online content, applications, and service providers to access consumers. This standard also gives the Commission discretion to prohibit any Internet service provider practice that it believes violates any one of the non-exhaustive list of factors adopted in the Title II Order.

    56. We propose eliminating this Internet conduct standard and the non-exhaustive list of factors intended to guide application of the rule, and we seek comment on this proposal. What are the costs of the present Internet conduct standard and implementing factors? Do the standard and its implementing factors provide carriers with adequate notice of what they are and are not allowed to do? Does the standard benefit consumers in any way and, if so, how? We believe that eliminating the Internet conduct standard will promote network investment and service-related innovation by eliminating the uncertainty caused by vague and undefined regulation. Do commenters agree?

    57. Because the Internet conduct standard is premised on theoretical problems that will be adjudicated on an individual, case-by-case basis, Internet service providers must guess at what they are permitted and not permitted to do. The now-retracted so-called Zero Rating Report issued by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau illustrates the dilemma providers experience under a Title II regulatory regime. After a thirteen-month investigation, the Report did not specifically call for an end to any provider's practices or identify any particular harm from offering consumers free data. Instead, it stated that the free-data plans “may raise” economic and public policy issues that “may harm consumers and competition.” It then reiterated that any determination about the harm from free data offerings would be made by the Commission on a “case-by-case” basis, using a “non-exhaustive list of factors.” Instead of giving providers clear rules of the road to govern future conduct, this report put a provider on notice that an enforcement action could be just around the corner. The Report, and the investigation that preceded it, left Internet service providers with two options: Either wait for a regulatory enforcement action that could arrive at some unspecified future point or stop providing consumers with innovative offerings. We seek comment on whether this roving mandate has impacted innovation, and what impact that has had on consumers. We seek comment on whether eliminating this vague standard will spur innovation and benefit consumers.

    58. We propose not to adopt any alternatives to the Internet conduct rule, and we seek comment on this proposal. Is there a need for any general non-discrimination standard in today's Internet marketplace? If so, what would that general non-discrimination standard be? The 2014 Notice proposed prohibiting “commercially unreasonable practices.” Should we consider that alternative? Or should we consider another general rule and framework (such as Commission adjudication of non-discrimination complaints)? If we adopt our proposals to eliminate the Internet conduct standard and not to adopt any alternative general requirement, we seek comment on how we can encourage innovative business models that give consumers more choices and lower prices while also promoting consumer freedom on the Internet.

    2. Determining the Need for the Bright Line Rules and the Transparency Rule

    59. In the Title II Order, despite virtually no quantifiable evidence of consumer harm, the Commission nevertheless determined that it needed bright line rules banning three specific practices by providers of both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service: Blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The Commission also “enhanced” the transparency rule by adopting additional disclosure requirements. Today, we revisit these determinations and seek comment on whether we should keep, modify, or eliminate the bright line and transparency rules.

    60. At the outset of our review of the Commission's existing rules, we seek comment on whether ex ante regulatory intervention in the market is necessary in the broadband context. Beyond the few, scattered anecdotes cited by the Title II Order, have there been additional, concrete incidents that threaten the four Internet Freedoms sufficient to warrant adopting across-the-board rules? Is there any evidence of market failure, or is there likely to be, sufficient to warrant pre-emptive, comprehensive regulation? How have marketplace developments impacted the incentive and ability, if any, of broadband Internet access service providers to engage in conduct that is contrary to the four Internet Freedoms? Must we find that market power exists to retain rules in this space, and if so must the rules only apply to providers that have market power? Further, should any approach we adopt—whether ex ante rules, expectations regarding industry self-governance, or ex post enforcement practices—vary based on the size, financial resources, customer base of the broadband Internet access service provider, and/or other factors? Specifically, we seek comment on whether rules are necessary for or burdensome on smaller providers.

    61. The Commission partially justified the 2015 rules on the theory that the rules would prevent anti-competitive behavior by ISPs seeking to advantage affiliated content. With the existence of antitrust regulations aimed at curbing various forms of anticompetitive conduct, such as collusion and vertical restraints under certain circumstances, we seek comment on whether these rules are necessary in light of these other regulatory regimes. Could the continued existence of these rules negatively impact future innovative, pro-competitive business deals that would not by themselves run afoul of merger conditions or established antitrust law?

    62. In addition, the D.C. Circuit majority that reviewed the Title II Order stated that “[i]f a broadband provider . . . were to choose to exercise editorial discretion—for instance, by picking a limited set of Web sites to carry and offering that service as a curated internet experience,” then the Title II Order “excludes such [a] provider[ ] from the rules.” Given that an ISP can avoid Title II classification simply by blocking enough content, are the purported benefits of the existing rules more illusory than they initially appear? By disclosing to consumers that it is offering a “curated internet experience,” can an ISP escape from the ambit of the rules entirely? We seek comment on the implications of the D.C. Circuit's observation.

    63. Need for the No-Blocking Rule. We emphasize that we oppose blocking lawful material. The Commission has repeatedly found the need for a no-blocking rule on principle, asserting that “the freedom to send and receive lawful content and to use and provide applications and services without fear of blocking is essential to the Internet's openness.” We merely seek comment on the appropriate means to achieve this outcome consistent with the goals of maintaining Internet freedom, maximizing investment, and respecting the rule of law. We seek comment on whether a codified no-blocking rule is needed to protect such freedoms. For example, prior to 2015, many large Internet service providers voluntarily abided by the 2010 no-blocking rule in the absence of a regulatory obligation to do so. Do we have reason to think providers would behave differently today if the Commission were to eliminate the no-blocking rule? Is the no-blocking rule necessary for or burdensome on smaller providers?

    64. We seek comment on the continuing need for a no-blocking rule. The no-blocking rule, originally adopted in 2010, invalidated by the Verizon court, and re-adopted in the Title II Order, prohibits Internet service providers from blocking competitors' content by mandating that a customer has a right to access lawful content, applications, services, and to use non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

    65. If we determine that a no-blocking rule is indeed necessary to ensure a free, open, and dynamic Internet, what are the best means to achieve this outcome consistent with the goals of maintaining Internet freedom and maximizing investment? Should we consider modifying the existing no-blocking rule to better align with our proposed legal classification of broadband Internet access service as an information service? The Verizon court made clear that the Commission's 2010 no-blocking rule impermissibly subjected Internet service providers to common-carriage regulation. We seek comment on whether there are other formulations of a no-blocking rule that are consistent with our proposed legal classification of broadband Internet access service as an information service and for which we would have legal authority.

    66. Need for the No-Throttling Rule. In the Title II Order, the Commission concluded that throttling was a sufficiently severe and distinct threat that it required its own, separate, codified rule. The no-throttling rule mirrors the no-blocking rule and bans the impairment or degradation of lawful Internet traffic or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management practices. We seek comment on whether this rule is still necessary, particularly for smaller providers. How does the rule benefit consumers, and what are its costs? When is “throttling” harmful to consumers? Does the no-throttling rule prevent providers from offering broadband Internet access service with differentiated prioritization that benefits consumers? Does the no-throttling rule harm latency-sensitive applications and content? Does it prevent product differentiation among ISPs? If we eliminate the no-blocking rule, should we also eliminate the no-throttling rule? If we determine that a no-throttling rule is indeed necessary to ensure a free, open, and dynamic Internet, are there ways in which we could modify the no-throttling rule so it aligns with our proposed legal classification of broadband Internet access service as an information service and for which we would have legal authority?

    67. The Commission justified the separate, codified no-throttling rule on the theory of preventing anti-competitive behavior for broadband Internet access providers' affiliated content. With the existence of antitrust and other regulations aimed at curbing collusion, we seek comment on whether a no-throttling rule is duplicative of these other regulatory regimes. Could the continued existence of this rule negatively impact future innovative, pro-competitive business deals that would not by themselves run afoul of merger conditions or established antitrust law?

    68. Need for the No Paid Prioritization Rule. The Commission concluded in the Title II Order that “fast lanes” or “paid prioritization” practices “harm consumers, competition, and innovation, as well as create disincentives to promote broadband deployment.” The Commission adopted this ex ante flat ban on individual negotiations to address an apparently nonexistent problem. The ban on paid prioritization did not exist prior to the Title II Order and even then the record evidence confirmed that no such rule was needed since several large Internet service providers made it clear that that they did not engage in paid prioritization and had no plans to do so. We seek comment on the continued need for such a rule and our authority to retain it.

    69. What are the trade-offs in banning business models dependent on paid prioritization versus allowing them to occur when overseen by a regulator or industry actors? Is there a risk that banning paid prioritization suppresses pro-competitive activity? For example, could allowing paid prioritization give Internet service providers a supplemental revenue stream that would enable them to offer lower-priced broadband Internet access service to end-users? What would be the impacts on new startups and innovation? Does a no-paid-prioritization rule harm the development of real-time or interactive services? Could allowing paid prioritization enable certain critical information, such as consumers' health care vital signs that are being monitored remotely, to be transmitted more efficiently or reliably? What other considerations mitigate any potential negative impacts from business models like paid prioritization? Should the Commission impose restrictions on these business models at all?

    70. We seek comment on current traffic delivery arrangements online. How do content, application, and service providers host their data online? Do they rely on installing their own servers in data centers, content delivery networks, or cloud-based hosting? What are the varying service characteristics of these options and their varying costs? It appears that some larger online content providers like Netflix host their own data centers and interconnect directly with Internet service providers. Is that still true? What are the service characteristics and costs of this option? How should the existence of these arrangement impact our evaluation of whether Internet service providers should be able to offer an alternative delivery option such paid prioritization?

    71. For those parties that believe an ex ante flat ban on paid prioritization is necessary, are there other formulations of a no-paid-prioritization rule that are consistent with our proposed legal classification of broadband Internet access service as an information service and for which we would have legal authority? Are there any other formulations that are consistent with allowing pro-competitive or pro-consumer paid prioritization arrangements? Would we need to modify the rule and, if so, how?

    72. Need for the Transparency Rule. We seek comment on whether to keep, modify, or eliminate the transparency rule. When the Commission adopted the transparency rule in 2010 and enhanced it in 2015, it found that “effective disclosure of Internet service providers' network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service promotes competition, innovation, investment, end-user choice, and broadband adoption.” We continue to support these objectives and seek comment on whether the existing transparency rule is the best way to accomplish them, or if there are other methods we can employ to achieve the goals of competition, innovation, investment, end-user choice, and broadband adoption.

    73. Although we agree that the disclosure requirements were among some of the least intrusive regulatory measures imposed by the Title II Order, we seek comment on whether the additional reporting obligations from that rule remains necessary in today's competitive broadband marketplace. What are the benefits and drawbacks of those additional reporting obligations? Is the length of time necessary to obtain approval of these rules, first adopted in February 2015 and yet not going into effect until nearly two years later, illustrative of just how burdensome the new enhancements are in comparison to the 2010 rule? Would the original transparency rule, which has been continuously operational since it came into effect following adoption of the Open Internet Order, be sufficient to protect consumers? Although the Verizon court upheld the 2010 transparency rule, we seek comment on our authority to retain the 2015 “enhancements” or to modify the transparency rule in a manner distinct from the Open Internet Order or Title II Order. For example, does the full and accurate disclosure of service plan information to consumers carry with it most of the benefits of the rule? How often do non-consumers rely on the additional disclosures required by the transparency rule? Are those additional benefits worth the additional cost of compliance, especially for small businesses?

    74. Assuming we find a transparency rule necessary, how should we treat the additional guidance related to the transparency rule? For example, should we continue to enforce guidance from the Commission's Chief Technology Officer regarding acceptable methodologies for disclosure of network performance to satisfy the enhanced transparency rule? Is there merit in continuing to promote the broadband consumer labels that provided ISPs with a safe harbor—or do those standardized notices harm consumers by preventing them from obtaining additional information? Does the repeated need for advisory guidance following the original 2010 transparency rule indicate that the rule itself is too open-ended?

    3. Additional Considerations Applicable to Existing Rules

    75. Should we decide to keep or modify any of our existing open Internet rules, we propose and seek comment on several issues related to their continued operation.

    76. Scope. Should we keep any of the existing bright-line rules or the transparency rule, we propose maintaining the definitions of the services applicable to the rules, the scope of the term “lawful content,” the exception for reasonable network management, and other provisions adopted in the Title II Order so as not to impact ISPs rights or obligations with respect to other laws or safety and security considerations. Reasonable network management “allow[s] service providers the freedom to address legitimate needs such as avoiding network congestion and combating harmful or illegal content” without running afoul of the rules. With respect to the definition of “reasonable network management,” we seek comment on whether we should eliminate the restriction imposed by the Title II Order that the exception will only be considered if used for a “technical management justification rather than other business justifications,” or if we should return to the 2010 definition of “reasonable network management” that did not contain that qualifier.

    77. For the reasonable network management exception and definition of non-broadband Internet access service data services that fall outside the scope of the rules, we seek comment on how we should view any additional guidance explaining those terms as set forth in the Title II Order, but not codified as part of the rules. Should we follow the case-by-case approach taken for evaluating reasonable network management? For non-broadband Internet access service data services, should we adhere to the characteristics of non-broadband Internet access service data services described in the Title II Order? Or, should we revert to the general concept of non-broadband Internet access service data services discussed in the Open Internet Order (and then known as “specialized services”)? Further, for non-broadband Internet access service data services, should we eliminate the guidance that if non-broadband Internet access service data services “are undermining investment, innovation, competition, and end-user benefits,” then the Commission will take enforcement action—including the particularized focus on ensuring that “over-the-top services offered over the Internet are not impeded in their ability to compete with other data services?”

    78. Application to Mobile. To the extent we keep or modify any of the existing rules, we seek comment on whether mobile broadband should be treated differently from fixed broadband. The Title II Order applied the Internet openness rules equally to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access services. This approach departed from the Open Internet Order's framework, which adopted a different no-blocking standard for mobile broadband Internet access service and excluded mobile from the no unreasonable discrimination rule. Are there legal, technical, economic, and/or policy reasons to distinguish mobile and fixed broadband with respect to rules in this context, and if so how should we differentiate the two in any rules that we keep or modify? For instance, several mobile providers who opposed application of the broader rules in 2015 argued that additional rules were unnecessary because competition for mobile broadband service adequately restrained the behavior of mobile Internet service providers. We seek comment on whether this contention is correct in today's marketplace.

    4. Enforcement Regime

    79. Should we keep or modify any of the Commission's existing rules discussed above, we seek comment on how we should enforce them. In the Open Internet Order the Commission set forth procedures for filing both informal and formal complaints. Commission rules currently provide for filing fees in the case of complaints to enforce Part 8 rules governing broadband Internet access service and in the case of data roaming complaints. Would those rules need to be modified in the event that we reclassify broadband Internet access service? Could some rules subject to those complaint procedures remain? Are there other similar issues the Commission would need to address? The Title II Order also allowed the Enforcement Bureau to issue advisory opinions and enforcement advisories, and it created an ombudsperson position to provide effective access to dispute resolution. We seek comment on whether advisory opinions or enforcement advisories have benefitted consumers or broadband Internet access service providers. If we restore the broadband Internet access service classification to an information service, should that alter our complaint and enforcement process in this context?

    80. Additionally, we seek comment on streamlining future enforcement processes. For instance, we propose eliminating the ombudsperson role. Is the role of an ombudsperson necessary to protect consumer, business, and other organizations' interests when the Commission has a Bureau—the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB)—dedicated to protecting consumer interests? Our experience suggests that consumers are comfortable working with CGB, and typically did not call on the ombudsperson specifically. Has the ombudsperson been called to action to assist in circumstances that otherwise could not have been handled by CGB?

    81. What have been the benefits and drawbacks of the complaint procedures instituted in 2010 and 2015? Since these rules were formally codified in 2010, only one formal complaint has been filed under them to date. Can we infer that parties heeded the Commission's encouragement to “resolve disputes through informal discussions and private negotiations” without Commission involvement, except through the informal complaint process? Does the lack of formal complaints indicate that dedicated, formal enforcement procedures are unwarranted? If we restore broadband Internet access service's classification as an information service, should that alter our complaint and enforcement process in this context? If so, in what way should the processes be altered? Are there methods other than formal complaints we can employ to ensure a free and open Internet?

    82. In addition to the enforcement regime, the Title II Order delegated authority to several Bureaus and Offices to make further decisions involving the rules following their adoption. For example, the Title II Order delegated authority to the Chief Technologist to provide guidance under the transparency rule and further delegated authority to several Bureaus to determine whether the safe harbor disclosures under the transparency rule aligned with the Commission's expectations. If we determine there is no need for the existing transparency rule or enforcement regime, then we believe that the technological and safe harbor guidance would become irrelevant. We also believe that the safe harbor disclosure guidance would be rendered moot. We seek comment on this analysis and on whether there nonetheless are any affirmative steps the Commission should take with respect either to those delegations of authority or to actions already taken in reliance on that delegated authority.

    B. Legal Authority To Adopt Rules

    83. We seek comment on the legal authority that the Commission would have in this area if we adopted our lead proposal to classify broadband Internet access service as an information service.

    84. Section 706. We seek comment on whether section 706(a) and (b) of the 1996 Act are best interpreted as hortatory rather than as delegations of regulatory authority. Such an interpretation generally is reflected in the Commission's approach to section 706 prior to 2010. The text of these provisions also appears more naturally read as hortatory, particularly given the lack of any express grant of rulemaking authority, authority to prescribe or proscribe the conduct of any party, or to enforce compliance. Although some courts have held that the Commission's post-2010 interpretation of section 706(a) and/or (b) as a grant of regulatory authority was not unreasonable, we seek comment on whether interpreting those provisions as hortatory nonetheless is the better reading. Or should we maintain our post-2010 interpretation of these provisions? Alternatively, we seek comment whether section 706 reflects a “deregulatory bent,” and, if so, how we should interpret that with respect to obligations for regulated entities. If section 706 reflects a deregulatory emphasis, what authority does it give the Commission, particularly in situations in which capital expenditures by Internet service providers have slowed, as they have in the past year under Title II regulation? If we interpret section 706(a) as a grant of authority, does that mean state commissions would have coequal authority? If we interpret section 706(b) as a grant of authority, what would happen to any rules adopted using that authority if the Commission later found that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion? Are there other interpretations of section 706 of the 1996 Act that we should consider?

    85. Section 230. We also seek comment on whether section 230 gives us the authority to retain any rules that were adopted in the Title II Order. In Comcast, the D.C. Circuit observed that the Commission there “acknowledge[d] that section 230(b)” is a “statement [ ] of policy that [itself] delegate[s] no regulatory authority.” Are there grounds for the Commission to revisit that interpretation or otherwise invoke section 230 here? For example, the D.C. Circuit in Comcast speculated that “[p]erhaps the Commission could use section 230(b) . . . to demonstrate . . . a connection” to an “express statutory delegation of authority,” although it had not done so there. If the Commission were to demonstrate a connection to an express statutory delegation of authority, what would such a demonstration look like? What, if any, express statutory delegations of authority over broadband Internet access service exist?

    86. Other Sources of Legal Authority. Should we determine rules are indeed necessary in this space, we seek comment on any other sources of independent legal authority we might use to support such rules. For example, we seek comment on the Communications Act authority cited by the Commission in its Open Internet Order. If any other sources of legal authority exist, to what extent could they be used? And, what are the trade-offs, including the advantages and disadvantages, of using any of these other sources of legal authority in lieu of Title II provisions that depend on the classification of broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service and/or section 706 of the 1996 Act?

    87. Constraints on our Legal Authority. The Commission has repeatedly recognized that adopting rules like these raises constitutional concerns. For example, some petitioners in the USTelecom v. FCC case argued that compelling an Internet service provider to carry all speech violates the First Amendment. Others have argued that “[t]here is no principled basis for distinguishing the speech of broadband providers from other speakers using older technologies.” The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that “the First Amendment poses no bar to the rules.” However, at least one judge on the D.C. Circuit believes that the Commission's current “net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . . . . [because] the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market.” We seek comment on whether the First Amendment or any other constitutional provision, or any other federal law, would constrain the Commission from adopting rules here. If a rule poses serious constitutional concerns, how should we modify it? Does the continued classification of broadband Internet access service as a common-carriage service itself raise any constitutional concerns?

    C. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    88. We propose as part of this proceeding to conduct a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). We propose to compare the costs and the benefits of maintaining the classification of broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service (i.e. Title II regulation); (Throughout this section, when discussing maintaining broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service, we mean as actually implemented by the Title II Order, where the Commission forbore from applying some sections of the Act and some Commission rules) maintaining the Internet conduct rule; maintaining the no-blocking rule; maintaining the no-throttling rule; maintaining the ban on paid prioritization; maintaining the transparency rules; and acting on the other interpretive and policy changes for which we seek comment above. We seek comment on how the CBA should be conducted to appropriately separate or combine the analyses of each piece discussed above. We also seek comment generally on the importance of conducting a CBA as well as the interaction between the Commission's public interest standard and a weighing of the costs and benefits.

    89. Given the size of the economic impacts due to our decisions in this proceeding, it is especially important to evaluate whether the decision will have net positive benefits. Our presumption is that the effects of the decision would have an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million which is the federal government's standard threshold for requiring agencies covered by Executive Order 12866 to conduct a regulatory analysis. (A “regulatory analysis” has three key components: (1) A statement of the need for a proposed action, (2) an examination of alternative approaches, and (3) an evaluation of the benefits and the costs). The other parts of this NPRM effectively seek comment on the first and second pieces of the regulatory analysis). Executive Order 12866 indicates regulatory actions are economically significant if they “[h]ave an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.” While the Commission is not required by law to comply with this Executive Order, we believe the $100 million threshold provides a helpful guideline for when a CBA is clearly appropriate. (While we believe it is clearly appropriate for actions in excess of $100 million, we make no suggestion here about whether the Commission should conduct CBAs below that threshold). We seek comment on our assertion that conducting a CBA is appropriate and that the decision is likely to be economically significant.

    90. In conducting the CBA, we propose to follow standard practices employed by the federal government. Specifically we propose to follow the guidelines in section E (“Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs”) of the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-4. This publication provides guidelines that an agency can follow for identifying and quantifying costs and benefits associated with regulatory decisions while allowing for appropriate latitude in how the analysis is conducted for a particular regulatory situation. We seek comment on following Circular A-4 generally. We also seek comment on any specific portions of Circular A-4 where the Commission should diverge from the guidance provided. Commenters should explain why particular guidance in Circular A-4 should not be followed in this circumstance and should propose alternatives.

    91. Any CBA should be conducted by comparing the costs and benefits relative to the “baseline” scenario. As OMB Circular A-4 explains, “[t]his baseline should be the best assessment of the way the world would look absent the proposed action.” Care should be taken to recognize that in certain cases repealing or eliminating a rule does not result in a total lack of regulation but instead means that other regulations continue to operate or other regulatory bodies will have authority. For example, as we evaluate the costs and benefits of maintaining the current classification of broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service, the CBA should recognize that changing the classification of broadband Internet access service to an information service would result in the FTC having jurisdiction over certain aspects of such services. Therefore, the benefits and costs of the FCC maintaining Title II jurisdiction over broadband Internet access service should be calculated with FTC enforcement as the appropriate baseline. In this example, the benefits of maintaining the Commission's Title II classification are those benefits that exist over and above the “baseline” scenario of FTC jurisdiction (and, at a minimum, FCC Title I protections). Likewise, the costs of maintaining Title II should be estimated as those costs of ex ante FCC regulation relative to FTC ex post regulation. We seek comment on the appropriate baseline scenarios that should be used and on our proposed course of action above.

    92. In weighing the costs and benefits of any policy, there always exists an element of uncertainty. As commenters suggest costs and benefits the Commission should consider, we ask that to the extent possible information could also be provided about the level of certainty surrounding a scenario or particular value. Also, various costs and benefits are likely to occur at different points in time. When suggesting costs and benefits, we seek comment on the timing of those costs and benefits. (As explained in OMB Circular A-4, section E, the timing of costs and benefits is important because ultimately the CBA will need to discount future costs and benefits for the purpose of calculating net present benefits.) We also seek comment on how uncertainty around and timing of costs and benefits should interact in the analysis.

    93. Costs. There is evidence that the actions taken by the Commission in the Title II Order have reduced investments by ISPs. We presume that maintaining those actions would depress investment relative to the baseline. Many of the costs of lower or misallocated investment in networks and in other sectors of the digital economy will be due to consumers and businesses having less broadband Internet access service coverage and lower quality of service. Since the networks built with capital investments are only a means to an end, we believe that the private costs borne by consumers and businesses of maintaining the status quo result from decreased value derived from using the networks. We seek comment on this analysis. What approaches should we use to capture these costs? We seek comment on particular methods and data sources we might use to estimate the private costs of forgoing the building, maintaining, or upgrading of these networks.

    94. In addition to the private costs discussed above, foregone networks may also impose additional societal costs. In particular, fewer network effects created by increased connectivity will occur. As another example, society will not realize some efficiencies and savings from governments delivering services over the networks. Additionally, there are likely long run costs due to forgoing better connectivity that would allow new products and services to be created. We seek comment on this analysis. How should our CBA incorporate these types of cost into the analysis? What other ancillary costs might exist? What data is appropriate to use?

    95. It is also likely that the foregone investment per se results in economic costs (e.g., fewer network construction jobs), and we seek comment on how the Commission should incorporate any of these costs into the analysis. For example, should the Commission use a multiplier to account for economic activity missed due to tempered investment? If so, what are the appropriate multipliers to use? Commenters should provide sources to justify recommendations for multiplier values.

    96. Lastly, there may be other costs that are not directly the result of decreased investment in networks. Maintaining current policies may prevent new business models or new products and services from being viable and ultimately delivering value to society. We seek comment on such costs and how we may incorporate them into our analysis.

    97. Benefits. There are various theoretical possibilities for economic benefits created by the current policies. We therefore seek comment on these benefits. Commenters should identify these benefits relative to an appropriate baseline, not relative to a situation where there is no regulation or statute to govern behavior. For example, if the ban on paid prioritization is maintained but broadband Internet access service is classified as an information service, then commenters should identify the benefits a blanket ban on paid prioritization carries over the FTC's authority to police anticompetitive conduct.

    98. We particularly seek comments that attempt to quantify the benefits rather than merely suggest the existence of benefits without any indication of their magnitude. We also ask commenters to particularly highlight benefits where actual misconduct has been observed. To the extent the baseline scenario allows any market failures to go unregulated, commenters should clearly identify the market failure and the estimated economic benefit associated with addressing it through the maintenance of current policies.

    IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    99. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission requests written public comment on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

    A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    100. With this NPRM, the Commission initiates a new rulemaking that proposes to restore the market-based policies necessary to preserve the future of Internet Freedom, and to reverse the decline in infrastructure investment, innovation, and options for American consumers put into motion by the Commission in 2015. The Commission's Title II Order has put at risk online investment and innovation, threatening the very open Internet it purported to preserve. Investment in broadband networks declined. Internet service providers (ISPs) have pulled back on plans to deploy new and upgraded infrastructure and services to consumers. This is particularly true of the smallest Internet service providers that serve consumers in rural, low-income, and other underserved communities. This rulemaking continues the critical work to promote broadband deployment to rural consumers and infrastructure investment throughout our nation, to brighten the future of innovation both within networks and at their edge, and to close the digital divide.

    101. The NPRM sets forth the following three main proposals: Returning broadband Internet access service to its previously-settled classification as an information service, restoring the definition of “public switched telephone network” to its original meaning, and eliminating the Internet conduct standard. The NPRM also seeks comment on a variety of issues relating to the effects of the Commission's Title II Order, including the burdens imposed by the Title II Order that have led to decreased investment and reduced innovation and have been felt by Internet service providers (ISPs) and consumers. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on the effects of reclassifying broadband Internet access service as an information service on the existing enforcement regime and the necessity of the other rules adopted in the Title II Order. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on the usefulness and necessity of the no-blocking rule, the no-throttling rule, the no paid prioritization rule, and the transparency rule.

    B. Legal Basis

    102. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is contained in sections 3, 10, 201(b), 230, 254(e), 303(r), 332, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 153, 160, 201(b), 254(e), 303(r), 332, 1302.

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Would Apply

    103. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

    1. Total Small Entities

    104. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215 small organizations. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

    2. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers

    105. The proposed rules would apply to broadband Internet access service providers. The Economic Census places these firms, whose services might include Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or over client-supplied telecommunications connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs). The former are within the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which has an SBA small business size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. These are also labeled “broadband.” The latter are within the category of All Other Telecommunications, which has a size standard of annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. These are labeled non-broadband. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. For the second category, census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of broadband Internet access service provider firms are small entities.

    106. The broadband Internet access service provider industry has changed since this definition was introduced in 2007. The data cited above may therefore include entities that no longer provide broadband Internet access service, and may exclude entities that now provide such service. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small entities that our action might affect, we discuss in turn several different types of entities that might be providing broadband Internet access service. We note that, although we have no specific information on the number of small entities that provide broadband Internet access service over unlicensed spectrum, we include these entities in our Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

    3. Wireline Providers

    107. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

    108. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. The Commission therefore estimates that most providers of local exchange carrier service are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.

    109. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted. Three hundred and seven (307) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees.

    110. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined above. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.

    111. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

    112. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. The applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to internally developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by our proposed rules.

    113. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 33 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by our proposed rules.

    114. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be considered small. According to internally developed Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.

    4. Wireless Providers—Fixed and Mobile

    115. The broadband Internet access service provider category covered by these proposed rules may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of regulated wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband Internet access service, the proposed actions may have an impact on those small businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.

    116. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities.

    117. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

    118. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions.

    119. 1670-1675 MHz Services. This service can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile. An auction for one license in the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was not a small entity.

    120. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, a little less than one third of these entities can be considered small.

    121. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a “small business” for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.

    122. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.

    123. Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. The Commission awards “small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The Commission awards “very small entity” bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995, and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.

    124. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band and qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small businesses.

    125. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licenses and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-determined size standard. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as defined by the SBA.

    126. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. The Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses—“entrepreneur”—which is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. All three winning bidders claimed small business status.

    127. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz licenses commenced January 24, 2008 and closed on March 18, 2008, which included, 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 licenses. Thirty three winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.

    128. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five licenses.

    129. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses.

    130. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has previously used the SBA's small business size standard applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and under that definition, we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. These definitions were approved by the SBA. In May 2006, the Commission completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On June 2, 2006, the auction closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business status.

    131. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.

    132. 3650-3700 MHz band. In March 2005, the Commission released a Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order that provides for nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 MHz). As of April 2010, more than 1270 licenses have been granted and more than 7433 sites have been registered. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band nationwide, non-exclusive licensees. However, we estimate that the majority of these licensees are Internet Access Service Providers (ISPs) and that most of those licensees are small businesses.

    133. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz Service, where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. At present, there are approximately 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. There are approximately 135 LMDS licensees, three DEMS licensees, and three 24 GHz licensees. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of the IRFA, we will use the SBA's definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. We note, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities.

    134. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules.

    135. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

    136. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 2,336 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was: All such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 996 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 948 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 48 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.

    5. Satellite Service Providers

    137. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. Both categories have a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules.

    138. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” The category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.

    139. All Other Telecommunications. “All Other Telecommunications” is defined as follows: This U.S. industry is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.

    6. Cable Service Providers

    140. Because section 706 requires us to monitor the deployment of broadband using any technology, we anticipate that some broadband service providers may not provide telephone service. Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.

    141. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature (.e.g. limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers. The SBA has established a size standard for this industry stating that a business in this industry is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The 2012 Economic Census indicates that 367 firms were operational for that entire year. Of this total, 357 operated with less than 1,000 employees. Accordingly we conclude that a substantial majority of firms in this industry are small under the applicable SBA size standard.

    142. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable systems in the United States. Of this total, all but eleven cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.

    143. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

    7. All Other Telecommunications

    144. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors. This U.S. industry is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    145. As indicated above, the NPRM seeks comment on modifications to the Commission's existing no-blocking rule, no-throttling rule, no paid prioritization rule, and transparency rule, and it proposes eliminating the Internet conduct standard. While we anticipate that the removal or modification of burdensome regulations will lead to a long-term reduction in reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities, the potential modifications, if adopted, could initially impose additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities. We seek comment on any other potential effects that could result from the changes proposed in the NPRM, particularly as they relate to small businesses.

    E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    146. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    147. The NPRM specifically seeks comment on the reporting requirements imposed by the enhanced transparency rule, and whether modifying that rule would alleviate any regulatory burdens. Additionally, we believe that the proposals contained within this NPRM represent a significant consolidation and simplification for small entities from the rules imposed by the Title II Order. The rules imposed by the Title II Order created heavy compliance burdens, and those burdens were particularly onerous for smaller providers without dedicated compliance staffs. By proposing the elimination of the general conduct standard, and seeking comment on the other rules imposed by the Title II Order, the NPRM attempts to understand and mitigate the negative effects the Title II Order had on small businesses. More generally, by proposing to return to an information service classification for broadband Internet access services, the NPRM seeks to reduce the burdens that Title II classification imposed.

    148. The Commission also expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM and this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding. We note that numerous small providers have already filed comments with the Commission expressing their support for the Commission's proposed changes.

    149. We seek comment here on the effect the various proposals described in the NPRM, and summarized above, will have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. How can the Commission achieve its goal of protecting and promoting an open Internet while also imposing minimal burdens on small entities? We specifically note that within this NPRM, we have sought comment on the effects on small business of the disclosures required by the transparency rule, and we have emphasized the outsize regulatory burdens that Title II reclassification has placed on small internet providers. What other specific steps could the Commission take in this regard?

    150. Since this NPRM seeks to reduce the compliance burdens of ISPs through the removal of unnecessary regulation, it does not propose any alternative methods of reducing those burdens. However, we seek comment from interested parties or any potential method of reducing compliance burdens and restoring Internet freedom that has not been proposed in this NPRM.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

    151. None.

    V. Procedural Matters A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    152. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before the dates on the first page of this NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    153. This document contains proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    C. Other Procedural Matters 1. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose

    154. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    VI. Ordering Clauses

    155. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 3, 10, 201(b), 230, 254(e), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 153, 160, 201(b), 254(e), 303(r), 332, 1302, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

    156. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before July 17, 2017 and reply comments on or before August 16, 2017.

    157. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 8

    Protecting and promoting the open internet.

    47 CFR Part 20

    Commercial mobile services.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 8 and 20 as follows:

    PART 8—PROTECTING AND PROMOTING THE OPEN INTERNET
    § 8.11 [Remove and Reserve].
    1. Remove and reserve § 8.11. PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES 2. Amend § 20.3 by revising paragraph (b) under the definition of “Commercial mobile radio service;” paragraph (a) under the definition of “Interconnected Service;” and the definition of “Public Switched Network” to read as follows:
    § 20.3 Definitions.

    (b) The functional equivalent of such a mobile service described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (a) That is interconnected with the public switched network, or interconnected with the public switched network through an interconnected service provider, that gives subscribers the capability to communicate to or receive communication from all other users on the public switched network; or

    Public Switched Network. Any common carrier switched network, whether by wire or radio, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, and mobile service providers, that use the North American Numbering Plan in connection with the provision of switched services.

    [FR Doc. 2017-11455 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 17-106; FCC 17-59] Elimination of Main Studio Rule AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission proposes to eliminate its rule that requires each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a main studio located in or near its community of license. The Commission tentatively finds that the main studio rule is now outdated and unnecessarily burdensome for broadcast stations. The Commission also proposes to eliminate existing requirements associated with the main studio rule, including the requirement that the main studio must have full-time management and staff present during normal business hours, and that it must have program origination capability.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before July 3, 2017; reply comments are due on or before July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 17-106, by any of the following methods:

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

    • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information on this proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow, [email protected], of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-59, adopted and released on May 18, 2017. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to eliminate the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) rule that requires each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a main studio located in or near its community of license.1 When the rule was conceived almost eighty years ago, local access to the main studio was designed to facilitate input from community members as well as the station's participation in community activities. Today, however, widespread availability of electronic communication enables stations to participate in their communities of license, and members of the community to contact broadcast radio and television stations, without the physical presence of a local broadcast studio. In addition, because the Commission has adopted online public inspection file requirements for AM, FM, and television broadcast stations, community members no longer will need to visit a station's main studio to access its public inspection file. Television broadcasters completed their transition to the online public file in 2014, and radio broadcasters will complete their transition by March 1, 2018.2 Given these changes, in this proceeding we tentatively find that the main studio rule is now outdated and unnecessarily burdensome for broadcast stations and propose to eliminate it. We also propose to eliminate existing requirements associated with our main studio rule.3

    1 47 CFR 73.1125(a) through (d).

    2 As of June 24, 2016, commercial broadcast radio stations in the top 50 Nielsen Audio radio markets with five or more full-time employees were required to place new public and political file documents in the online file on a going-forward basis. By December 24, 2016, these entities were required to upload their existing public file documents to the online file, with the exception of existing political file material. As of March 1, 2018, all noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast radio stations, commercial broadcast radio stations in the top 50 Nielsen Audio radio markets with fewer than five full-time employees, and commercial broadcast radio stations in markets below the top 50 or outside all markets must have placed all existing public file material in the online public file, with the exception of existing political file material, and must begin placing all new public and political file material in the online file on a going-forward basis.

    3 The associated requirements include the requirement that the main studio must have full-time management and staff present during normal business hours, and that it must have program origination capability.

    2. We propose to eliminate our rule requiring each AM, FM,4 and television broadcast station to maintain a local main studio.5 We also propose to eliminate the associated staffing and program origination capability requirements that apply to main studios. We tentatively conclude that technological innovations have rendered a local studio unnecessary as a means for viewers and listeners to communicate with or access their local stations and to carry out the other traditional functions that they have served. In particular, it appears that a local main studio with staffing sufficient to accommodate visits from community members no longer will be justified once broadcasters fully transition to online public inspection files. We invite comment on these proposals.

    4 Although LPFM stations have no main studio requirement, points are awarded under the service's comparative selection procedures to those applicants that pledge to locally originate at least eight hours of programming per day and to maintain a main studio with local origination capability.

    5 We note that on April 19, 2017, Garvey Schubert Barer's (GSB) Media, Telecom and Technology group filed a petition asking the Commission to initiate a rulemaking to repeal its main studio rule. Because our proposals effectively satisfy GSB's request, we dismiss GSB's rulemaking petition as moot.

    3. We also seek comment on the costs that AM, FM, and television broadcast stations face in complying with the current main studio rule and associated requirements. How significant are these costs, particularly for small stations? Would eliminating the main studio rule, as well as the associated staffing and program origination capability requirements, enable broadcasters to allocate greater resources to programming and other matters? Would eliminating the rule make it more efficient for co-owned or jointly operated broadcast stations to co-locate their offices, rather than operating a main studio in or near each station's community of license? We invite comment on these and other efficiencies that could be achieved by eliminating the main studio rule. Are there any particular issues we should be aware of with regard to eliminating the main studio rule for non-commercial broadcast stations?

    4. How frequently do stations receive in-person visits from members of the community, and are those visits to request access to hard copy public inspection files or for other purposes? To what extent do people contact stations by telephone, by mail, or online, rather than through in-person visits? Have technological advances, including widespread access to the Internet, mobile telephones, email, and social media, obviated the need to accommodate in-person visits from community members? If we eliminate the main studio rule, would competitive market conditions ensure that stations will continue to keep apprised of significant local needs and issues? Would eliminating the main studio rule impact a station's ability to communicate time-sensitive or emergency information to the public? If the existence of a local main studio no longer plays a significant role in ensuring that broadcast stations serve their local communities, then eliminating the main studio requirement likely will not significantly impact the requirement that the Commission “make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States and communities as to provide for a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same.” 6 We seek comment on whether the current main studio rules and related requirements are necessary to implement section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Relatedly, we ask commenters to describe any remaining benefits of the main studio requirements and the associated staffing requirements.

    6 47 U.S.C. 307(b). We do not herein propose any modifications to the existing requirements pertaining to submission of quarterly issues/programs lists and requirements pertaining to a station's coverage of the community served.

    5. Although the Commission eliminated its program origination requirement in 1987, it subsequently clarified that stations must nonetheless “equip the main studio with production and transmission facilities that meet applicable standards [and] maintain continuous program transmission capability . . . [to] allow broadcasters to continue, at their option, and as the marketplace demands, to produce local programs at the studio.” We invite comment on the continued relevance of the program origination capability requirement that currently applies to main studios. What function does it serve today? To what extent do stations produce local programming at their main studios? If we eliminate the main studio rule, should we maintain the program origination capability requirement, and, if so, how? Would program origination, to the extent it happens today, occur anyway absent any capability requirement as stations seek to continue to meet viewers' and listeners' interests?

    6. We propose to retain section 73.1125(e) of our rules, which requires “[e]ach AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast station [to] maintain a local telephone number in its community of license or a toll-free number.” We invite comment on this proposal. Would retention of this requirement help ensure that members of the community continue to have access to their local broadcast stations, for example, to share concerns or seek information, if the current main studio requirements are eliminated? Stations currently are required to post their telephone numbers in their online public files. If we eliminate the main studio rule, should we encourage stations to also publicize their phone numbers in additional ways, such as on their Web sites? Should we require the telephone number to be staffed during normal business hours so that community members may seek assistance during that time? Or, should we require the telephone number to be staffed at all times in which the AM, FM, or Class A TV station is on the air? Alternatively, is a staffed telephone number requirement unnecessary so long as station staff regularly retrieves and responds promptly to voicemail messages from the public left at that telephone number? If community members must leave a voicemail message in order to reach a local broadcast station, will this impede the station's ability to relay time-sensitive emergency information to the public? Should we instead require each station to designate a point of contact to respond to communications from the public? We invite comment on these alternatives and any other approaches we should consider to ensure that members of the public can easily contact station representatives and receive timely responses. Should broadcasters establish processes to ensure their ability to receive time-sensitive or emergency information during non-business hours?

    7. To the extent that stations are no longer required to have a local main studio, we seek comment on how we should ensure that community members have access to a station's public file. In this regard, we note that television stations already have fully transitioned their public file materials to the online public file as have some radio stations. We recognize that under current rules, some stations may continue maintaining public inspection files locally, and not online, even after the applicable compliance deadline. In addition, certain existing political materials that are part of the public inspection file may remain in the local public inspection file, rather than the online public inspection file, until the station is no longer required to retain the materials in question. If all or a portion of a station's public inspection file is not available via the online public file, we invite comment on how best to ensure that community members have access to the relevant materials in the absence of a local main studio. For example, should we require the station to provide community members with access to its local public inspection file at another location in the community of license, such as a local library or another station's main studio? 7 Commenters advocating that approach should explain how stations would notify community members of the location of their public inspection file. Alternatively, should we eliminate the main studio rule only for stations that have fully transitioned all public file material to the online public file, including existing political file materials? 8 Would it be reasonable to permit a station to eliminate its local main studio if it has transitioned all of its public file materials to the online public file except for its political file materials for which it has a two-year retention period? We seek comment on the pros and cons of these various approaches.

    7 Applicants without a main studio currently have a similar requirement. See 47 CFR 73.3526(b)(1) (“. . . An applicant for a new station or change of community shall maintain its file at an accessible place in the proposed community of license or at its proposed main studio.”).

    8 For example, because television stations without waivers, and some radio stations, have fully transitioned all public file material to the online public file, they could eliminate their main studio upon the effective date of an order in this docket, if any, eliminating the main studio rule; whereas, radio stations that have not yet complied with the online public file requirements would not be able to take advantage of this potential rule change until they too had fully transitioned, if we only eliminate the main studio requirement for stations that have fully transitioned to an online public file. A station has “fully transitioned,” and thus could eliminate the main studio under this approach, only if all existing political file material was either voluntarily transitioned to the online public file, or, in the case of television stations, is older than the two year retention period.

    8. In addition to the proposed revisions to section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules, we propose to eliminate other Commission rules that currently reference section 73.1125. Specifically, if we eliminate the main studio rule, we also will need to delete sections 73.3538(b)(2) (informal application to relocate main studio), 73.1690(c)(8)(ii) (location of FM studio within station principal community contour), and 73.1690(d)(1) (permissive change in studio location) of the Commission's rules, all of which are premised on the existing main studio rule.9 We invite comment on this proposal. Are any other rule changes needed to conform to the proposed elimination of the main studio rule and associated requirements, including with respect to any rules that reference “studio” or “main studio” instead of section 73.1125? 10 For example, Class A stations are required to broadcast an average of at least three hours per week of “locally produced programming” each quarter. The Commission's rules define “locally produced programming” as programming “(1) Produced within the predicted Grade B contour . . . ; (2) Produced within the predicted DTV noise-limited contour . . . ; or (3) Programming produced at the station's main studio.” If the main studio rule and associated location restrictions are eliminated, how does that impact the third option? Could a Class A station locate a “main studio” at a distance outside its contour and still qualify as having “locally produced programming”? We seek comment on how to address this issue. Should we eliminate the main studio option from this rule? If so, how should we address Class A stations with main studios currently located outside the applicable contour? Is there some other relevant requirement we can substitute, to the extent necessary to meet our statutory requirements for Class A stations?

    9 In preparing this NPRM, we determined that section 73.1690(d)(2) of our rules references section 73.1410 of our rules, which has been deleted, and we thus propose to delete that outdated reference.

    10See, e.g., 47 CFR 73.3526(b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (e)(4); Id. 73.3527(b)(1), (b)(2)(iii), (c)(2), (e)(3); Id. 73.3544(b)(3).

    9. We also invite comment on any other issues related to our proposals in this proceeding. What impact would elimination of the main studio rule and the associated staffing and program origination requirements have on other Commission proceedings? 11

    11 For example, in certain cases Commission staff has assessed if one station is exercising de facto control over another by considering, among other things, compliance with the main studio minimum staffing requirements.

    10. Finally, we invite comment on any alternate proposals we should consider, rather than completely eliminating the main studio rule and associated requirements. For example, should we only eliminate the rule for a certain subset of stations, such as those that are located in small and mid-sized markets or those that have fewer than a certain number of employees? Commenters advocating this approach should explain with specificity how we should define those stations that will be permitted to eliminate their main studio. We have proposed to eliminate the main studio rule and the associated requirements for all AM, FM, and television broadcast stations. Is there any reason to distinguish between our treatment of AM, FM, and television broadcast stations in this context? We also invite comment on alternative ways we can reduce main studio-related burdens on broadcast stations.

    11. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In summary, the NPRM proposes to eliminate the rule that requires each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a main studio located in or near its community of license.12 The NPRM also proposes to eliminate existing requirements associated with our main studio rule, including the requirement that the main studio must have full-time management and staff present during normal business hours, and that it must have program origination capability. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307(b), and 336(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307(b), 336(f). The types of small entities that may be affected by the proposals contained in the NPRM fall within the following categories: Television Broadcasting, Radio Broadcasting. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements are: (1) A proposal to eliminate the rule requiring each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a local main studio; and (2) a proposal to eliminate the associated staffing and program origination capability requirements that apply to main studios. There is no overlap with other regulations or laws. The Commission invites comment on alternative ways it can reduce main studio-related burdens on small entities, including whether a requirement that the local telephone number for a main studio be staffed during normal business hours is unnecessary so long as station staff regularly retrieves and responds promptly to voicemail messages from the public left at that telephone number, or whether the Commission instead should require each station to designate a point of contact to respond to communication from the public; whether instead of eliminating the main studio rule entirely, the Commission could only eliminate the rule for a certain subset of stations, such as those that are located in small and mid-sized markets or those that have fewer than a certain number of employees; and whether to adopt an alternate approach pursuant to which, if the Commission does not eliminate the main studio rule entirely, it could eliminate the rule only for stations that have fully transitioned their public file materials to the online public file.

    12 47 CFR 73.1125(a) through (d).

    12. This document does not contain any proposed new information collection requirements. It does, however, contain proposals to delete rules that contain information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements that would be impacted by the proposals contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

    13. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    14. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307(b), and 336(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307(b), 336(f).

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Television.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, 310, 334, 336, and 339.

    2. Revise § 73.1125 to read as follows:
    § 73.1125 Station telephone number.

    Each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast station shall maintain a local telephone number in its community of license or a toll-free number.

    3. In § 73.1690, revise paragraphs (c)(8) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 73.1690 Modification of transmission systems.

    (c) * * *

    (8) FM commercial stations and FM noncommercial educational stations may decrease ERP on a modification of license application provided that exhibits are included to demonstrate that all five of the following requirements are met:

    (i) Commercial FM stations must continue to provide a 70 dBu principal community contour over the community of license, as required by § 73.315(a). Noncommercial educational FM stations must continue to provide a 60 dBu contour over at least a portion of the community of license. The 60 and 70 dBu contours must be predicted by use of the standard contour prediction method in § 73.313(b), (c), and (d).

    (ii) For commercial FM stations only, there is no change in the authorized station class as defined in § 73.211.

    (iii) For commercial FM stations only, the power decrease is not necessary to achieve compliance with the multiple ownership rule, § 73.3555.

    (iv) Commercial FM stations, noncommercial educational FM stations on Channels 221 through 300, and noncommercial educational FM stations on Channels 200 through 220 which are located in excess of the distances in Table A of § 73.525 with respect to a Channel 6 TV station, may not use this rule to decrease the horizontally polarized ERP below the value of the vertically polarized ERP.

    (v) Noncommercial educational FM stations on Channels 201 through 220 which are within the Table A distance separations of § 73.525, or Class D stations on Channel 200, may not use the license modification process to eliminate an authorized horizontally polarized component in favor of vertically polarized-only operation. In addition, noncommercial educational stations operating on Channels 201 through 220, or Class D stations on Channel 200, which employ separate horizontally and vertically polarized antennas mounted at different heights, may not use the license modification process to increase or decrease either the horizontal ERP or vertical ERP without a construction permit.

    (d) The following changes may be made without authorization from the FCC, however informal notification of the changes must be made according to the rule sections specified:

    (1) Commencement of remote control operation pursuant to § 73.1400.

    (2) Modification of an AM directional antenna sampling system. See § 73.68.

    4. In § 73.3538, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 73.3538 Application to make changes in an existing station.

    (b) An informal application filed in accordance with § 73.3511 is to be used to obtain authority to modify or discontinue the obstruction marking or lighting of the antenna supporting structure where that specified on the station authorization either differs from that specified in 47 CFR part 17, or is not appropriate for other reasons.

    [FR Doc. 2017-11425 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 105 Friday, June 2, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Advocacy and Outreach Notice of Request for Approval of Information Collection AGENCY:

    Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Office of Advocacy and Outreach's (OAO) intent to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct data collection for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Scholars Program.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 1, 2017 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Office of Advocacy and Outreach invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site (http://www.regulations.gov) provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments. Send mail, including CD-ROMs, etc., to: Jacqueline Padron, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Advocacy and Outreach, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Whitten Building Room 520-A, Mailstop 0601, Washington, DC 20250.

    Hand or courier submittals should be delivered to: Office of Advocacy and Outreach, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Whitten Building Room 520-A, Mailstop 0601, Washington, DC 20250.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include Office of Advocacy and Outreach, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, please contact the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Whitten Building Room 520-A, Mailstop 0601, Washington, DC 20250, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacqueline Padron, Program Director, Hispanic-Serving Institutions National Program (HSINP), USDA OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 520-A, Mailstop 0601, Washington, DC 20250, email: [email protected], Telephone: (202) 720-6506, Fax: (202) 720-7704.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: USDA/HSI Scholars Program.

    OMB Number: 0503-New.

    Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from approval date.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: The purpose of the USDA/HSI Scholars Program is to strengthen the long-term partnership between USDA and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions; to increase the number of students studying and graduating in food, agriculture, natural resources, and other related fields of study; to develop a pool of scientists and professionals to fill jobs in the food, agricultural, or natural resources system; and to create a talent pipeline for USDA.

    The USDA/HSI Scholars Program is a joint human capital initiative between USDA and Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Through the program, the USDA offers scholarships to high school and college students who are seeking a bachelor's degree in the fields of agriculture, food, or natural resource sciences, and related disciplines at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In order for graduating high school students and current freshmen and sophomores to be considered for the scholarship, a completed application is required. The first section of the high school application requests the applicant to include biographical information (e.g., name, address, etc.); educational background information (e.g., grade point average, name of university(ies) interested in attending, and desired major); and extracurricular activities. The second section of the application is completed by the student's guidance counselor and requests information pertaining to the student's academic status and grade point average. The last section of the application, which is to be completed by a teacher, provides information that assesses the applicant's interests, character, and potential. In addition to the application form, the college submission requires two letters of recommendation—one from a Department Head, Dean or University Vice President, and another from a College Professor. There are no sections included in the application that these individuals will need to complete.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one to two hours per response.

    Respondents: High School students, freshman and sophomore college students, teachers, principals, guidance counselors, and school administrators.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 600 (200 applications).

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 700 hours.

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed 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 the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to Jacqueline Padron, Program Director, Hispanic-Serving Institutions National Program, USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 520-A, Mail Stop 0601, Washington, DC 20250, or via email at: [email protected] All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB's approval.

    All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Signed this 23rd day of May 2017. Christian Obineme, Associate Director, Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11389 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3412-89-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 2:00 p.m. (Central Time) Wednesday, June 28, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive orientation from Commission staff and share project process.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 28, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. CDT.

    PUBLIC CALL INFORMATION:

    Dial: 800-310-7032.

    Conference ID: 6093907.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-310-7032, conference ID number: 6093907. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=276. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Committee Meeting Discussion III. Discussion on FY17 Civil Rights Project Ideas IV. Public Comment V. Next Steps VI. Adjournment Dated: May 26, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11403 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-36-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64—Jacksonville, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Hans-Mill Corporation; Subzone 64D; (Household Trash Cans and Plastic Storage Totes); Jacksonville, Florida

    Hans-Mill Corporation (Hans-Mill), operator of Subzone 64D, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 64D, in Jacksonville, Florida. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 10, 2017.

    The facility is used for the production of household trash cans and plastic storage totes. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Hans-Mill from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production (an estimated five percent of shipments). On its domestic sales, Hans-Mill would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to stainless steel/plastic trash cans and plastic storage totes, trash cans and liners (duty rates—2 or 3%) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The materials/components sourced from abroad include pre-cut/pre-treated stainless steel sheets, plastic lids, plastic bases, pulp packaging material and polypropylene resin material (duty rates range from free to 6.5%). The request indicates that stainless steel sheets are subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 12, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11416 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-37-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 114—Peoria, Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bell Sports, Inc.; Subzone 114F; (Sports Equipment); Rantoul, Illinois

    Bell Sports, Inc. (Bell Sports) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Rantoul, Illinois, within Subzone 114F. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 15, 2017.

    Bell Sports already has authority to produce certain sports equipment within Subzone 114F. The current request would add foreign status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Bell Sports from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Bell Sports would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to bicycle, motorcycle, football and baseball helmets; bicycle baby seats; bicycle car carrier racks; and, collectible football helmets (duty rates range from free to 10%) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The materials/components sourced from abroad include polypropylene webbing for bike helmets, stainless steel pins, aluminum screws, LED lights for bike helmets, and knee and elbow pad sets (duty rates range from 2.5% to 6.2%). The request indicates that the polypropylene webbing for bike helmets (classified under HTSUS 5806.32) will be admitted to the subzone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff savings on this item.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 12, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11417 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Change in Comment Deadline for Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice on change in comment period for previously published notice of request for public comments and public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 9, 2017, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), published the Notice of Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum. The May 9 notice specified that the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of aluminum. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. (See the May 9 notice for additional details on the investigation and the request for public comments.) The May 9 notice also announced that the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on the investigation on June 22, 2017 in Washington, DC (See the May 9 notice for additional details on the public hearing.) The deadline for the written comments was June 29, 2017. Today's notice moves the deadline for all written submissions up by six calendar days. Commenters now are encouraged to submit their comments by June 20, 2017, but all written submissions must be received by no later than June 23, 2017 to be considered in the drafting of the final report.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged to be submitted by June 20, but comments must be received no later than June 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Studies, Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1093, Washington, DC 20230 or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Studies, Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482-4060, [email protected] For more information about the section 232 program, including the regulations and the text of previous investigations, see www.bis.doc.gov/232.

    Submit public comments to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 9, 2017 (82 FR 21509), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the Notice of Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum. The May 9 notice specified that on April 26, 2017, the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security of imports of aluminum. (See the May 9 notice for additional details on the investigation and the request for public comments.)

    The May 9 notice also announced that the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on the investigation on June 22, 2017 in Washington, DC. (See the May 9 notice for additional details on the public hearing.)

    Change in Comment Period Deadline

    The May 9 notice included a comment period deadline of June 29, 2017 and required that written statements related to the public hearing also be submitted by June 29, 2017. The Department of Commerce has determined at this time that it is warranted to shorten the written submission period by six calendar days. Today's notice specifies that commenters are encouraged to submit their comments by June 20, 2017, but all written submissions must now be received by no later than June 23, 2017 to be considered in the drafting of the final report. Submit public comments to [email protected]

    Receiving comments by June 20, 2017 will assist the Commerce Department in preparing for the public hearing on the investigation scheduled for June 22, 2017. Moving the deadline for all written submissions to June 23, 2017 will enable the Commerce Department to more expeditiously finalize the report, taking account of the time-sensitive nature of the national security implications related to this section 232 investigation of aluminum, and of the President's direction to move quickly on this important matter. The Commerce Department has included one additional day after the hearing concludes to allow people who attend or view remotely the hearing to submit any additional comments they may have in response to testimony during the hearing.

    Dated: May 31, 2017. Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11557 Filed 5-31-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-869] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Notice of Correction to Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lilit Astvatsatrian or 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) 482-6412 or (202) 482-4852, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the Antidumping Duty Order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India.1 In the Antidumping Duty Order, the Department inadvertently omitted a statement to explain that Balkrishna Industries Limited (BKT) is partially excluded from the Antidumping Duty Order.

    1See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India: Antidumping Duty Order, 82 FR 12553 (March 6, 2017) (Antidumping Duty Order).

    Correction

    Because the Department calculated a weighted-average antidumping duty margin of zero percent for BKT in the Final Determination, 2 which was unchanged in the Amended Final Determination, 3 BKT is partially excluded from the Antidumping Duty Order. Therefore, we are correcting the Antidumping Duty Order to specify that merchandise produced and exported by BKT is excluded from the Order. This exclusion does not apply to merchandise produced by BKT and exported by any other company or merchandise produced by any other company and exported by BKT. Resellers of merchandise produced by BKT, are also not entitled to this exclusion. The sections explaining the suspension of liquidation and listing the weighted-average antidumping duty margins and cash deposit rates should have appeared as follows:

    2See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Final Negative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 4848, 4849 (January 17, 2017) (“Final Determination”).

    3See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India and Sri Lanka: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination for India and Countervailing Duty Orders, 82 FR 9056, 9058 (February 2, 2017) (Amended Final Determination).

    Antidumping Duty Order

    In accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing off road tires is materially injured by reason of the less-than-fair value imports of off road tires from India.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this antidumping duty order.

    4See Letter to Ronald Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding off the road tires from the India and Sri Lanka (February 23, 2017). See also Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India and Sri Lanka, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-552-553 and 731-TA-1308 (Final), USITC Publication 4669 (February 2017).

    As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of off-road tires from India, which specifically excludes merchandise exported and produced by BKT. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of off road tires from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2017, the date of publication of the Amended Final Determination. 5

    5See Amended Final Determination, 82 FR at 9056.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation, in Part

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of off road tires from India. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins listed below.6 The all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed. For the purposes of determining cash deposit rates, the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for imports of subject merchandise from India have been adjusted for export subsidies found in the amended final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation of this merchandise (i.e., 4.72 percent).7

    6See Section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    7See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India and Sri Lanka: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination for India and Countervailing Duty Orders, 82 FR 12556 (March 6, 2017).

    Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for BKT's producer and exporter combination is zero, the Department is directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection not to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise where BKT acted as both the producer and exporter. Entries of subject merchandise exported to the United States by any other producer and exporter combination are not entitled to this exclusion from suspension of liquidation and are subject to the cash deposit rate for the all-others entity.

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit
  • rate adjusted
  • for subsidy
  • offset
  • (percent)
  • ATC Tires Private Ltd 3.67 0.00 All-Others 3.67 0.00

    This correction to the Antidumping Duty Order is issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act.

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11424 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the Commission) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Reviews which covers the same order(s).

    DATES:

    Effective June 2, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    Initiation of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):

    DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A-351-809 731-TA-532 Brazil Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-533-502 731-TA-271 India Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube (4th Review) Robert James (202) 482-0649. A-475-828 731-TA-865 Italy Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-557-809 731-TA-866 Malaysia Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-201-805 731-TA-534 Mexico Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-565-801 731-TA-867 Philippines Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-580-809 731-TA-533 Republic of Korea Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-583-008 731-TA-132 Taiwan Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-549-502 731-TA-252 Thailand Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-489-501 731-TA-273 Turkey Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes (4th Review) Robert James (202) 482-0649. C-489-502 701-TA-253 Turkey Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes (4th Review) Robert James (202) 482-0649. Filing Information

    As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/. All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

    1See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in these segments.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

    2See section 782(b) of the Act.

    3See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)).

    On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).4 Parties are advised to review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied. Parties are also advised to review the final rule concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD/CVD proceedings, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1309frn/2013-22853.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.5

    4See Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013).

    5See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

    Information Required From Interested Parties

    Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.6

    6See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

    If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

    This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11419 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF447 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meetings AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 50 Assessment Webinars 3 and 4.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 50 assessment of the Atlantic stock of Blueline Tilefish will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Stock ID Work Group Meeting; Data Workshop; Assessment Workshop and Webinars; and a Review Workshop.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 50 Assessment Webinars 3 and 4 will be held on Monday, June 19, 2017 and Monday, July 10, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The Review Workshop dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meetings will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; www.sedarweb.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing a workshop and/or webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion at the Assessment webinars are as follows:

    Participants will discuss any remaining modeling issues from the Assessment Workshop.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified 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 intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11430 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF446 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's Ad Hoc Ecosystem Workgroup will hold a webinar, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar will be held on Monday, June 19, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., or when business for the day is completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    To join the webinar visit this link: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar. Enter the Webinar ID: 473-224-379. Enter your name and email address (required). You must use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting by dialing this TOLL number +1 (631) 992-3221. Enter the Attendee phone audio access code 887-175-225. Enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Note: We have disabled Mic/Speakers as an option and require all participants to use a telephone or cell phone to participate. Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (See the GoToMeeting WebinarApps). You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]) or contact him at (503) 820-2411 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.

    Council office address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council Staff Officer; phone: (503) 820-2422; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In March 2017, the Pacific Council requested the EWG to discuss the two ecosystem initiatives identified in Appendix A to the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan: A combined initiative on the socio-economic effects of fisheries management practices on fishing communities (A.2.7) and on human recruitment to the fisheries (A.2.6), and an initiative on the effects of near-term climate shift and long-term climate change on our fish, fisheries, and fishing communities (A.2.8). The EWG intends to discuss the specific objectives of the initiatives, inventory available information, and propose a timeline for completing either or both initiatives. The Council directed the EWG to report back at the September 2017 Pacific Council meeting. The purpose of this webinar is for the EWG to discuss the tasks outlined above and begin planning their report for the September 2017 Pacific Council meeting.

    Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document 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 intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11429 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services previously furnished by such agencies.

    Comments must be received on or before: July 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following product and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 13008—Melon Baller. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH. Mandatory for: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 41 CFR 51-6.4. Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency. Distribution: C-List Services Service Type: Custodial Service. Mandatory for: National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort Mason, Buildings 101, 201 and 204, San Francisco, CA. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Toolworks, Inc., San Francisco, CA. Contracting Activity: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Service Type: Individual Equipment Elements (IEE) Store Service. Mandatory for: US Air Force, Elmendorf AFB, 10480 Sijan Avenue, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: RLCB, Inc., Raleigh, NC. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA5000 673 CONS LGC Service Type: Dispenser Machine Support Service Mandatory for: US Navy, Naval Medical Center San Diego, 34800 Bob Wilson Drive, San Diego, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Job Options, Inc., San Diego, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Naval Medical Center Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): FS1349B—Windbreaker, SCSEP, Forest Service, Dark/Green/Pantone, Various Sizes FS509A—Vest, Forest Service, SCSEP, Various Sizes FS240—Jeans, Field, Forest Service, Men's, Various Sizes FS400—Pants, Field, Forest Service, Men's, Dark Green/Pantone, Wool, Various Sizes FS326—Cap, Baseball, Forest Service, Dark Green/Pantone, Nylon Mesh, Various Sizes FS521—Cap, SCSEP, Forest Service, Dark Green/Pantone, Nylon Mesh, Various Sizes FS9552—Patches, Volunteer, Forest Service, Pkg. of 10 FS875—Nameplate, Forest Service, Law Enforcement, Gold Plated 8455-00-NSH-0012—Patches, Volunteer, Forest Service, Pkg. of 10 8455-00-NSH-0022—Nameplate, Forest Service, Law Enforcement, Gold Plated 8455-00-NSH-0023—Patch, Forest Service, Law Enforcement, Large 8455-00-NSH-0024—Patch, Forest Service, Law Enforcement, Small Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Human Technologies Corporation, Utica, NY Contracting Activity: Department Of Agriculture, Washington Office Services Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory for: Eglin Air Force Base: Duke Field, Eglin, FL Eglin Air Force Base: East of Memorial Trail (excluding the airfield), Eglin, FL Eglin Air Force Base: Navy EOD, Eglin, FL Eglin Air Force Base: Ranger Camp, Eglin, FL Eglin Air Force Base: Site C-6, Eglin, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA2823 AFTC PZIO Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11468 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective: July 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Deletions

    On April 28, 2017 (82 FR 19662-19663), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530‐01‐368‐3491—Index Dividers, White Tabs with Black Print, January-December Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX Contracting Activities: General Services Administration, New York, NY Department of Veterans Affairs, Strategic Acquisition Center NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7930-00-NIB-0210 Cleaner, Phenolic Disinfectant, Concentrate, 2 Liter 7930-01-381-5957 Cleaner, Pretreatment Carpet, Concentrate, 2 Liter 7930-01-412-1031 Cleaner, Scotchgard Bonnet, Concentrate, 2 Liter Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Beacon Lighthouse, Inc., Wichita Falls, TX Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, Strategic Acquisition Center NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7350-01-359-9524—Cup, Paper, Recyclable, White, 9 oz. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Clovernook Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Cincinnati, OH Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-624-9379—Pen, Roller Ball, Liquid Ink, Retractable, Needle Point, Airplane Safe, 0.5mm, Refillable, Black, EA 7520-01-624-9383—Pen, Roller Ball, Liquid Ink, Retractable, Needle Point, Airplane Safe, 0.5mm, Refillable, Blue, EA 7520-01-624-9384—Pen, Roller Ball, Liquid Ink, Retractable, Needle Point, Airplane Safe, 0.7mm, Refillable, Black, EA 7520-01-624-9385—Pen, Roller Ball, Liquid Ink, Retractable, Needle Point, Airplane Safe, 0.7mm, Refillable, Blue, EA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-466-0485—Tray, Desk, Plastic Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 891500-NSH-0145—Diced Green Peppers Diced Green Peppers 891500-NSH-0146—Sliced Yellow Onions Sliced Yellow Onions 891500-NSH-0147—Cole Slaw with Carrots Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Employment Solutions, Inc., Lexington, KY Contracting Activity: Department of Justice, Federal Prison System NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 942—Cloth, Dish, 2 pack Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lions Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1430-01-133-8435—Bag, Storage Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Huntsville Rehabilitation Foundation, Huntsville, AL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11469 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0075] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; U.S. Department of Education Supplemental Information for the SF-424 Form AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0075. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-32, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6110.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: U.S. Department of Education Supplemental Information for the SF-424 Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1894-0007.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 8,078.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,666.

    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education Supplemental Information form for the SF-424 is used together with the SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance. Several years ago ED made a decision to switch from its previously cleared form, the Application for Federal Education Assistance or ED 424 (1890-0017) collection (now 1894-0007). ED made a policy decision to switch to the SF-424 in keeping with Federal-wide forms standardization and streamlining efforts, especially with widespread agency use of Grants.gov.

    There were several data elements/questions on the ED 424 that were required for ED applicants that were not included on the SF-424. Therefore, ED put these questions that were already cleared as part of the 1890-0017 collection (now 1894-0007) on a form entitled the, U.S. Department of Education Supplemental Information for the SF-424.

    The questions on this form deal with the following areas: Project Director identifying and contact information; Novice Applicants; and Human Subjects Research. The ED supplemental information form could be used with any of the SF-424 forms in the SF-424 forms family, as applicable.

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11406 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9961-06] Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which information has been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the information received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: John Schaeffer, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8173; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information received about the following chemical substance and/or mixture is provided in Unit IV.: Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-67-2).

    II. Authority

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement promulgated under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).

    III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register document, which announces the receipt of the information. Upon EPA's completion of its quality assurance review, the information received will be added to the docket identified in Unit IV., which represents the docket used for the TSCA section 4 rule, order, and/or consent agreement. In addition, once completed, EPA reviews of the information received will be added to the same docket. Use the docket ID number provided in Unit IV. to access the information received and any available EPA review.

    EPA's dockets are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    IV. Information Received

    As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the information received by EPA.

    Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-67-2).

    1. Chemical Use: D4 is used as an intermediate for silicone copolymers and other chemicals. D4 is also used in industrial processing applications as a solvent (which becomes part of a product formulation or mixture), finishing agent, and an adhesive and sealant chemical. It is also used for both consumer and commercial purposes in paints and coatings, and plastic and rubber products and has consumer uses in polishes, sanitation, soaps, detergents, adhesives, and sealants.

    2. Applicable Rule, Order, or Consent Agreement: Enforceable Consent Agreement for Environmental Testing for Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-67-2).

    3. Information Received: The following listing describes the nature of the information received. The information will be added to the docket for the applicable TSCA section 4 rule, order, or consent agreement and can be found by referencing the docket ID number provided. EPA reviews of information will be added to the same docket upon completion.

    4. D4 Environmental Testing ECA—Interim Progress Report #6. The docket ID number assigned to this information is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0209.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: April 10, 2017. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11460 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9033-5] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 05/22/2017 Through 05/26/2017 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20170091, Draft, USAF, OH, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Housing Program, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2017, Contact: Mike Ackerman 210-925-2741 EIS No. 20170092, Draft, USACE, USFWS, CA, South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/05/2017, Contact: John Robles 916-414-6731 (USFWS), Michael Jewell 916-557-6605 (USACE)

    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are joint lead agencies on this project.

    EIS No. 20170093, Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, Westside Purple Line Extension, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2017, Contact: Ray Tellis 213-202-3950 Amended Notices EIS No. 20170031, Draft, USFS, ID, Big Creek Hot Springs Geothermal Leasing, Comment Period Ends: 07/03/2017, Contact: Julie Hopkins 208-756-5279.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 03/17/2017; Reopening the Comment Period to End 07/03/2017.

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11464 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Regular Meeting AGENCY:

    Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of regular meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).

    DATES:

    The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on June 8, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Submit attendance requests via email to [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about attendance requests.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

    Closed Session • FCSIC Report on System Performance and Liquidity Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • March 9, 2017 B. Business Reports • FCSIC Financial Reports • Report on Insured Obligations • Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan C. New Business • Policy Statement on Strategic Planning • Mid-Year Review of Insurance Premium Rates Dated: May 30, 2017. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11408 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6710-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-xxxx] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before August 1, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-xxxx.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Video Service Authorization, Schedule 387 (Transition Progress Report).

    Form Number: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 387 (Transition Progress Report Form).

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,000 respondents; 3,333 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours (1 hour to complete the form, 1 hour to respond to technical questions).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 6,666 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $260,241.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Public Law 112-96, § 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: By Public Notice released January 10, 2017, The Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Release Transition Progress Report Form and Filing Requirements for Stations Eligible for Reimbursement from the TV Broadcast Relocation Fund and Seek Comment on the Filing of the Report by Non-Reimbursable Stations, MB Docket No. 16-306, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 256 (IATF/Med. Bur. 2017). The Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau described the information that must be provided in the adopted FCC Form 2100, Schedule 387 (Transition Progress Report Form) to be filed by Reimbursable Stations and when and how the Transition Progress Reports must be filed. We also proposed to require broadcast television stations that are not eligible to receive reimbursement of associated expenses from the Reimbursement Fund (Non-Reimbursable Stations), but must transition to new channels as part of the Commission's channel reassignment plan, to file progress reports in the same manner and on the same schedule as Reimbursable Stations, and sought comment on that proposal. By Public Notice released May 18, 2017. The Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Adopt Filing Requirements for the Transition Progress Report Form by Stations That Are Not Eligible for Reimbursement from the TV Broadcast Relocation Fund, MB Docket No. 16-306, Public Notice, DA 17-484 (rel. May 18, 2017) (referred to collectively with Public Notice cited above as Transition Progress Report Public Notices). We concluded that Non-Reimbursable Stations will be required to file Transition Progress Reports following the filing procedures adopted for Reimbursable Stations.

    The Commission is seeking from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for FCC Form 2100, Schedule 387 (Transition Progress Report).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11336 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 30, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Bank Forward Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Fargo, North Dakota; to acquire up to 30 percent of Security State Bank Holding Company, Fargo, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Bank Forward, Hannaford, North Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 30, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11437 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 26, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Waseca Bancshares, Inc., Waseca, Minnesota; to merge with Freedom Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Lake Area Bank, both of Lindstrom, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 26, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11398 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 12, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Pamela Fowler, Bonita Springs, Florida, individually and together as a group acting in concert with Dawneda F. Williams, Wise, Virginia; to retain voting shares of Miners and Merchants Bancorp and indirectly, retain shares of Trupoint Bank, both of Grundy, Virginia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 26, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11399 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10380] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10380 Reporting Requirements for Grants to States for Rate Review Cycle IV and Effective Rate Review Program

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Reporting Requirements for Grants to States for Rate Review Cycle IV and Effective Rate Review Program; Use: Section 2794(c) directs the Secretary to carry out a program to award grants to states, which are to serve the following purposes: (1) Establish or enhance rate review programs, referred to as “Rate Review” activities; (2) Help states to provide data to the Secretary regarding trends in rate increases as well as recommendations regarding plan participation in the Exchange, referred to as “Required Rate Reporting” activities; (3) Establish or enhance Data Centers that collect, analyze, and disseminate health care pricing data to the public, referred to as “Data Center” activities.

    CMS has released Premium Review Grants in four funding opportunity cycles. Grant recipients must states submit the following to the Secretary for each grant cycle, as applicable: Quarterly reports—30 days after the quarter has ended for the entire duration of the grant; Annual report—This report does not contain data, but instead documents the progress toward establishing or enhancing an Effective Rate Review Program and/or a Data Center; Final report—This report is due at the end of the grant period.

    The final rule “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Health Insurance Market Rules; Rate Review” (78 FR 13406, February 27, 2013) modified criteria and factors for states to have an Effective Rate Review Program. These changes were necessary to reflect market reform provisions and to fulfill the statutory requirement that the Secretary, in conjunction with the states, monitor premium increases of health insurance coverage offered through an Exchange and outside of an Exchange.

    CMS is authorized under 45 CFR 154.301(d) to evaluate whether, and to what extent, a state's circumstances have changed such that it has begun to or has ceased to satisfy the Effective Rate Review Program criteria. States respond to a questionnaire annually via the Health Insurance Oversight System (HIOS), a web-based data collection system commonly used on a regular basis. All submissions are made electronically and no paper submissions are required. CMS is not requesting any changes to the questionnaire at this time. Form Number: CMS-10380 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1121); Frequency: Quarterly and Yearly; Affected Public: State agencies; Number of Respondents: 51; Total Annual Responses: 571; Total Annual Hours: 15,415. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Lisa Cuozzo at 410-786-1746.)

    Dated: May 30, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11431 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-1572 and CMS-10633] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously collection; Title of Information Collection: Home Health Agency Survey and Deficiencies Report; Use: In order to participate in the Medicare Program as a Home Health Agency (HHA) provider, the HHA must meet federal standards. This form is used to record information and patients' health and provider compliance with requirements and to report the information to the federal government. Form Number: CMS-1572 (OMB Control Number: 0938-0355); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government; Number of Respondents: 3,830; Total Annual Responses: 3,830; Total Annual Hours: 849. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Sarah Fahrendorf at 410-786-3112.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: New Collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: QIC Demonstration Evaluation Contractor (QDEC): Analyze Medicare Appeals to Conduct Formal Discussions and Reopenings with Suppliers; Use: The Formal Telephone Discussions Demonstration is designed to improve the efficiency of Medicare's five-level appeals system for fee-for-service (FFS) claims, which currently is experiencing a backlog. In the Demonstration, the Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) provides education through a formal telephone discussion process to improve suppliers' understanding of the reasons for claim denials, and ultimately improve the quality of future claims submissions. CMS is interested in determining whether engagement between suppliers and the QIC will improve the understanding of the cause of Level 2 appeal denials, and over time, whether this results in increased submission of accurate and complete claims at the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) level. The evaluation of the Demonstration will use both quantitative and qualitative techniques to analyze the outcomes and impact of the Demonstration. Claims analysis, a web-based supplier survey, and supplier key informant interviews will inform the evaluation, and: (1) Focus specifically on outcomes including supplier satisfaction with the discussions, the rate of claims denials, and the number of claims that go through appeals Levels 2 and 3; (2) seek to determine whether further engagement between suppliers and the QIC improves understanding of the reasons for claim denials; and (3) support CMS in assessing the QIC's effectiveness in meeting a number of criteria established by CMS, including how satisfied participating suppliers were with the formal telephone discussion process. Form Number: CMS-10633 (OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Monthly; Affected Public: Private Sector Business or other for-profits, Not-for-Profit Institutions; Number of Respondents: 10,560; Total Annual Responses: 2,640; Total Annual Hours: 473.3. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Lynnsie Doty at 410-786-2175.)

    Dated: May 30, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11428 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request: Chimpanzee Research Use Form (Office of the Director) AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: The Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, OD, NIH, Building 1, Room 260, 1 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892; or call non-toll-free number 301-402-9852; or email your request, including your address, to [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Proposed Collection Title: Chimpanzee Research Use Form, 0925-0705, Extension Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The purpose of this form is to obtain information needed by the NIH to assess whether the proposed research satisfies the agency's policy for permitting only noninvasive research involving chimpanzees. The NIH will consider the information submitted through this form prior to the agency making funding decisions or otherwise allowing the research to begin. Completion of this form is a mandatory step toward receiving NIH support or approval for non-invasive research involving chimpanzees. The NIH does not fund any research involving chimpanzees proposed in new or other competing projects (renewals or revisions) unless the research is consistent with the definition of “noninvasive research,” as described in the “Standards of Care for Chimpanzees Held in the Federally Supported Chimpanzee Sanctuary System” (42 CFR part 9). See NOT-OD-16-095 at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-095.html and 81 FR 6873.

    OMB approval is requested for three years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours is 10.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • time per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hour
  • Research Community 20 1 30/60 10 Total 20 1 10
    Dated: May 23, 2017. Lawrence A. Tabak, Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11393 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: Protection and Advocacy for Individuals With Mental Illness (PAIMI) Annual Program Performance Report (OMB No. 0930-0169)—Extension

    The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act at 42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq., authorized funds to the same protection and advocacy (P&A) systems created under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975, known as the DD Act (as amended in 2000, 42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.]. The DD Act supports the Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities (PADD) Program administered by the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) within the Administration on Community Living. AIDD is the lead federal P&A agency. The PAIMI Program supports the same governor-designated P&A systems established under the DD Act by providing legal-based individual and systemic advocacy services to individuals with significant (severe) mental illness (adults) and significant (severe) emotional impairment (children/youth) who are at risk for abuse, neglect and other rights violations while residing in a care or treatment facility.

    In 2000, the PAIMI Act amendments created a 57th P&A system—the American Indian Consortium (the Navajo and Hopi Tribes in the Four Corners region of the Southwest). The Act, at 42 U.S.C. 10804(d), states that a P&A system may use its allotment to provide representation to individuals with mental illness, as defined by section 42 U.S.C. 10802 (4)(B)(iii) residing in the community, including their own home, only, if the total allotment under this title for any fiscal year is $30 million or more, and in such cases an eligible P&A system must give priority to representing PAIMI-eligible individuals, as defined by 42 U.S.C. 10802(4)(A) and (B)(i).

    The Children's Health Act of 2000 (CHA) also referenced the state P&A system authority to obtain information on incidents of seclusion, restraint and related deaths [see, CHA, Part H at 42 U.S.C. 290ii-1]. PAIMI Program formula grants awarded by SAMHSA go directly to each of the 57 governor-designated P&A systems. These systems are located in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the American Indian Consortium, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    The PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10805(7) requires that each P&A system prepare and transmit to the Secretary HHS and to the head of its State mental health agency a report on January 1. This report describes the activities, accomplishments, and expenditures of the system during the most recently completed fiscal year, including a section prepared by the advisory council (the PAIMI Advisory Council or PAC) that describes the activities of the council and its independent assessment of the operations of the system.

    The Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) proposes no revisions to its annual PAIMI Program Performance Report (PPR), including the advisory council section, at this time for the following reasons: (1) The revisions revise the SAMHSA PPR, as appropriate, for consistency with the annual reporting requirements under the PAIMI Act and Rules [42 CFR part 51]; (2) The revisions simplify the electronic data entry by state PAIMI programs; (3) GPRA requirements for the PAIMI Program will be revised as appropriate to ensure that SAMHSA obtains information that closely measures actual outcomes of programs that it funds and (4) SAMHSA will reduce wherever feasible the current reporting burden by removing any information that does not facilitate evaluation of the programmatic and fiscal effectiveness of a state P&A system (5) The new electronic version will expedite SAMHSA's ability to prepare the biennial report; (6) The new electronic version will improve SAMHSA's ability to generate reports, analyze trends and more expeditiously provide feedback to PAIMI programs. The current report formats will be effective for the FY 2017 PPR reports due on January 1, 2018

    The annual burden estimate is as follows:

    Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hour
  • burden
  • Program Performance Report 57 1 20 1,140 Advisory Council Report 57 1 10 570 Total 57 1,710

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by July 3, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11421 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5997-N-25] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration Evaluation AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on September 21, 2016 at 81 FR 64929.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration Evaluation.

    OMB Approval Number: Pending.

    Type of Request: 2528—New.

    Form Number: No forms.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD generally publishes a single FMR for each metropolitan area and provides public housing agencies with discretion to vary local voucher payment standards between 90 and 110 percent of the Fair Market Rent (FMR) (unless HUD approves an exception). The SAFMR demonstration is testing the alternative approach of setting FMRs at the ZIP Code level. The core hypothesis is that this will significantly expand the ability of Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) holders to access housing in neighborhoods with high-quality schools, low crime rates, and other indicators of opportunity, as well as integrated neighborhoods in furtherance of HUD's goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing.

    HUD is evaluating the SAFMR demonstration and an important consideration in this evaluation is how voucher holders and landlords perceive the shift from traditional area-wide FMRs to SAFMRs. HUD will look into whether both existing and new voucher holders understood how the change to using SAFMRs affected their housing options and whether it led movers to search in new neighborhoods or affected the rate of moving of existing voucher holders. Similarly, HUD wants to know whether landlords were aware of the change in the HCV program and whether this affected their willingness to rent to voucher holders and the level at which they set rents. In order to address these perceptions, 70 tenants and 35 landlords will be interviewed in the areas served by the five PHAs that are in the SAFMR demonstration: Housing Authority of Cook County (IL); Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach (CA); Chattanooga (TN) Housing Authority; Town of Mamaroneck (NY) Housing Authority; Housing Authority of the City of Laredo (TX); and two PHAs from the Dallas metropolitan area—Dallas Housing Authority (TX), and the Plano Housing Authority (TX). To build rapport during recruitment, by acknowledging the value of their time, an incentive payment of $20 for tenants and $40 for landlords will be made.

    EN02JN17.000 B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed 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 the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (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 using appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: May 25, 2017. Anna P. Guido, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11396 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2017-N050; FF08ESMF00-FXES11140800000-178] Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for South Sacramento County, California; Joint Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; receipt of permit application; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of a draft environmental impact statement and draft environmental impact report (EIS/EIR), which evaluates the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP). The SSHCP was submitted by six permit applicants in support of permit applications under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA), for the incidental take of federally listed and other covered species resulting from the implementation or approval of future SSHCP covered activities, including urban development projects, within a 317,656-acre planning area. We request review and comment on the draft SSHCP and the draft EIS/EIR from local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribes; and the public.

    DATES:

    Submitting Comments: To ensure consideration, we must receive written comments by 5 p.m. on August 31, 2017. Meeting Dates: See Meetings under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for public meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may obtain documents by one of the following methods:

    Internet: You may obtain electronic copies of the draft EIS/EIR and proposed HCP document on the SSHCP Web site at http://www.southsachcp.com, or on the Sacramento County Project Viewer Web site at https://planningdocuments.saccounty.net/ViewProjectDetails.aspx?ControlNum=2003-0637.

    U.S. Mail: CD-ROMs of the draft EIR/EIS and the draft SSHCP are available, by request, from the County Environmental Coordinator, at the County of Sacramento, Office of Planning and Environmental Review, 827 7th Street, Room 225, Sacramento, CA 95814; or by email at [email protected]; or by phone at (916) 874-6141. Please note that your request is in reference to the SSHCP.

    In-Person: Copies of the draft EIR/EIS and the draft SSHCP documents are also available for public inspection and review at the following locations, during normal business hours:

    ○ Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento CA 95825.

    ○ County of Sacramento, 827 7th Street, Room 225, Sacramento, CA 95814.

    ○ Sacramento Public Library, Central Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

    You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:

    Electronically: Submit via email to: [email protected], and include “SSHCP” in the subject line,

    By hard copy: (1) Submit by U.S. mail to: County Environmental Coordinator, at the County of Sacramento address above, or call (916) 874-6141 to make an appointment during regular business hours to drop off written comments at that location; or (2) submit by U.S. mail to Jan C. Knight, Deputy Field Supervisor, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office address above, or by facsimile to (916) 414-6714, or call (916) 414-6700 to make an appointment during regular business hours to drop off written comments at that location.

    Meeting addresses: See Meetings below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for locations and addresses of public meetings.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    (1) Contact Nina Bicknese, Endangered Species Division, or Jan C. Knight, Deputy Field Supervisor, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office address shown above, or at (916) 414-6700 (telephone) for information on the SSHCP EIS/EIR. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339, or (2) County Environmental Coordinator, or Marianne Biner, Senior Planner, at the County of Sacramento address shown above, or at (916) 874-6141 for information on the draft SSHCP EIS/EIR; or (3) Richard Radmacher, Senior Planner, at the County of Sacramento address shown above, or at (916) 874-5369 for information on the draft SSHCP and associated documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the draft SSHCP in compliance with section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; ESA), and we announce the availability of the draft environmental impact statement and environmental impact report (SSHCP EIS/EIR), prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), and also prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as further described in the draft SSHCP EIS/EIR. We have prepared a joint EIS/EIR due to the combined local, State, and Federal discretionary actions and permits associated with the SSHCP. The co-lead agencies for the SSHCP EIS/EIR are Sacramento County, pursuant to CEQA, and the Service, pursuant to NEPA. The cooperating agencies are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. With this notice, we continue the HCP process, which started through a notice in the Federal Register on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66058), in which we announced the intent to prepare a NEPA document for the draft SSHCP.

    Background

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of fish and wildlife species that are federally listed as endangered under section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533, 1538). The ESA implementing regulations extend, under certain circumstances, the prohibition of take to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32. For more about the Federal HCP program, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/hcp.pdf.

    The purpose of issuing an ITP to the five permit applicants would be to permit incidental take of 28 covered species resulting from planned urban development and associated transportation and infrastructure projects that would be permitted or authorized by the County of Sacramento, City of Galt, City of Rancho Cordova, the Sacramento County Water Agency, and the Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority (together, the permit applicants). The approval of the draft SSHCP and issuance of the ITP is conditioned on the draft SSHCP meeting the criteria in section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA. The draft SSHCP is a regional, multi-agency strategy to assure permanent conservation of the 28 covered species and their habitats within the planning area, while providing future urban development and infrastructure covered activities with a more streamlined and more predictable Federal and State authorization and permitting process. The draft SSHCP covered activities incorporate measures that are intended to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking to the maximum extent practicable. The covered species include the federally endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), threatened Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and threatened giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), as well as 23 unlisted species that have the potential to become listed during the proposed permit term. The draft SSHCP also proposes to provide a comprehensive approach to the protection and long-term management of the relatively undisturbed vernal pool ecosystem remaining in the 317,656-acre Planning Area.

    Alternatives

    The EIR/EIS studies three alternatives in detail. Other reasonable alternatives were considered during the process of developing the HCP and the EIS/EIR, but others were not evaluated in detail because they did not meet the underlying needs or the purposes and objectives of the lead-agencies, as discussed in the EIS/EIR. The three alternatives are:

    No Action Alternative: No ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be issued to the five permit applicants. Instead, future urban development projects and activities with potential to impact federally listed species would continue to obtain individual ESA authorizations on a project-by-project basis through section 7 consultations, if a Federal nexus exists, or through an individual ITP under section 10 of the ESA. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no regional or comprehensive means to coordinate and standardize mitigation provided by multiple projects implemented over many years, or to provide comprehensive management of new mitigation lands in south Sacramento County.

    Proposed Action Alternative: This alternative is issuance of an ITP by the Service to the five permit applicants, with a permit term of 50 years. The ITP would authorize take from covered activities on non-Federal lands in the planning area. Covered activities include planned land uses described in general plans of Sacramento County, the City of Rancho Cordova, and City of Galt, including residential, commercial, and industrial development, and specific transportation, irrigation water, and wastewater projects. Current in-stream maintenance activities will also continue as a covered activity. Each category of proposed covered activities includes measures to avoid or minimize incidental take of the covered species, including project design modifications. Approximately 33,639 acres of natural land covers and species habitat would be directly and indirectly impacted over the permit term. The proposed conservation strategy includes the establishment of a 36,282-acre interconnected regional preserve system that would be comprised of relatively large, contiguous blocks of natural land covers with species-habitat. All lands in the 36,282-acre preserve system would be permanently preserved, monitored, and managed in perpetuity. In addition, the proposed conservation strategy includes approximately 1,787 acres of aquatic resources that would be re-established or established within this preserve system. All preserves will have endowments to cover long-term management needs. A preserve system management, monitoring, and reporting plan would assess the draft SSHCP's progress toward achievement of each biological goal and objective, and ensure that habitat conservation keeps pace with impacts.

    Reduced Permit Term Alternative. As with the proposed action, the Service would issue an ITP to the five permit applicants. However, the ITP would have a permit term of 30 years, which would more closely coincide with the durations of the approved general plans and other planning documents of the permit applicants. The categories of covered activities for the reduced permit term alternative would be the same as described for the proposed action, and approximately 19,371 acres natural land covers and species-habitat would be directly and indirectly impacted by the covered activities. The biological goals for the planning area would be the same as those identified for the proposed action/proposed project. The preserve system would have less connectivity and would be smaller, totaling approximately 20,044 acres. Approximately 1,723 acres of aquatic resources would be re-established or established. Similarly as with the proposed action alternative, a preserve system management, monitoring, and reporting plan would assess progress toward achievement of biological goals for a 30-year permit term.

    Meetings: The meeting dates are:

    1. June 21, 2017, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Wilton, CA. 2. June 26, 2017, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Rancho Cordova, CA. 3. July 6, 2017, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Galt, CA.

    The meeting addresses are:

    1. Wilton: Wilton Community Center, 9717 Colony Road, Wilton, CA 95693. 2. Rancho Cordova: Rancho Cordova City Hall, American River Room North, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670. 3. Galt: Littleton Community Center, 410 Civic Drive, Galt, CA 95632. Request for Comments

    Consistent with section 10(c) of the ESA, we invite the submission of written comments, data, views, or arguments with respect to the proposed incidental take permit application, the draft SSHCP, and the permitting decision. We particularly seek comments on the efficacy and effectiveness of the proposals contained in the draft SSHCP in producing the desired results for the covered species in this Planning Area, the sufficiency of the EIS/EIR in discussing possible impacts upon the environment, the ways in which adverse effects would be minimized, and alternatives to the proposed action.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that the entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Next Steps

    The lead agencies will accept public comments on the draft SSHCP and the draft SSHCP EIS/EIR during a public review and comment period, which ends 90 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will evaluate all public comments we receive on the draft HCP, the associated documents, and the draft EIS/EIR to determine whether the permit application and draft HCP meets requirements of ESA section 10(a), and draft EIS/EIR meets the requirements of the NEPA regulations. If the Service determines that those requirements are met, we will prepare a final SSHCP and EIS/EIR, which will be available for a 30-day minimum review period prior to the Service's final permit decision.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22), and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Michael Fris, Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11293 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0020; FXIA16710900000-178-FF09A30000] Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of applications for permit.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0020.

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0020; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

    Viewing Comments: Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2095.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Endangered Species Applications: Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2023; facsimile 703-358-2280.

    Wild Bird Conservation Act Applications: Craig Hoover, Chief, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2095; facsimile 703-358-2298.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Comment Procedures A. How Do I Request Copies of Applications or Comment on Submitted Applications?

    Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES. Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an email or address not listed under ADDRESSES. If you provide an email address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

    Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

    The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).

    B. May I Review Comments Submitted by Others?

    Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under ADDRESSES. The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    II. Background

    To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), along with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of January 21, 2009—Transparency and Open Government (74 FR 4685, January 26, 2009), which call on all Federal agencies to promote openness and transparency in Government by disclosing information to the public, we invite public comment on these permit applications before final action is taken.

    III. Permit Applications A. Endangered Species

    We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 531 et seq.; ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.

    Applicant: Tony Goldberg, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; PRT-16647C

    The applicant requests a permit to import blood, saliva, and hair samples from 48 Wild born chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and two captive-born chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; PRT-14106C

    The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples, common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), from captive-bred or wild species for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Schubot Exotic Bird Health Center, College Station, TX; PRT-19878C

    The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from the Great green macaw, (Ara Ambiguus) for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 1-year period.

    Applicant: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Dept. Veterinary Medicine, Fairbanks, AK; PRT-24212C

    The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from green sea turtle, (Chelonia mydas) for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 1-year period.

    Applicant: Crocodile Conservation Institute, Hamer, SC; PRT-00190C

    The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Galapagos tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra), Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis), African slender-snouted crocodile (Crocodylus cataphractus), Chinese alligator (alligator sinensis), Dwarf crocodile (osteolamus tetraspis), Broad-snouted caiman (Caiman latirostris). This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: McCarthy's Wildlife Sanctuary, West Palm Beach, FL; PRT-95720B

    The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Galapagos tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra), Radiated tortoise (Astrochelys radiate), Grand cayman inguana (Cyclura nubilis lewisii), Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta), Black and white ruffed lemur (Varecia variegate), Red ruffed lemur (Varecia rubra), cottontop tamarin (Saguigus oedipus), Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), Snow leopard (Unicia unicia), Spotted leopard (Panthera pardus), Africian lion (Panthera leo). This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Zooworld Zoological and Botanical Conservatory, Panama City Beach, FL; PRT-99140B

    The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Military macaw (Ara miliaris), Ring-tailed lemur, (Lemur catta), Black and white ruffed lemur (Varecia variegate), Red-ruffed lemur (Varecia rubra), Cottontop tamarin (Saguinus oedipus), Goeldi's marmoset (Callimico goeldii), Diana monkey (Cerocpithecus diana), Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus). This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Michael Lloret, Miami, FL; PRT-04218C

    The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Galapagos tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra), Radiated tortoise (Astrocheleys radiata), aquatic box turtle (Terrapene coahuila), Yellow-spot river turtle (Podocnemis unifilis), Spotted pond turtle (Geoclemys hamiltoni), River tarrapin (Batagur baska), Grand cayman inguana (Cyclura lewisii). This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: James Lee; Livermore, CA; PRT-93493B

    The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Galapagos tortoise (Geochelone nigra) and an Aquatic box turtle (Terrapene coahuila). This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    IV. Next Steps

    If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register. You may locate the Federal Register notice announcing the permit issuance date by searching in www.regulations.gov under the permit number listed above in this document.

    V. Public Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.

    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

    VI. Authorities

    Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531).

    Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11444 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Hearings and Appeals [17XD0120OS.DX68201.QAGENLAM.DOTN00000.000000.DS68241000] Tribal Listening Session; Oklahoma City Probate Hearings Division Field Office

    In notice document 2017-11186, beginning on page 24990 in the issue of Wednesday, May 31, 2017, make the following corrections:

    1. On page 24990, lines three and four in the SUMMARY section: “Probate Hearings Division (Ph.D.)” should read “Probate Hearings Division (PHD)”.

    2. On page 24990, line six in the SUMMARY section: “Ph.D.” should read “PHD”.

    3. On page 24990, line seven in column two: “Ph.D.” should read “PHD”.

    4. On page 24990, line three in the ADDRESSES section: “email—[email protected]” should read “email—[email protected]”.

    5. On page 24991, lines two and three in the first column, “email—[email protected]” should read “email—[email protected]”.

    6. On page 24991, line fifty-seven in the first column, “Ph.D.” should read “PHD”.

    7. On page 24991, line nineteen in the second column, “Ph.D.” should read “PHD”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2017-11186 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary [Docket No. ONRR-2012-0003; DS63600000 DR2000000.PMN000 178D0102R2] 30-Day Extension of Nomination Period for the Royalty Policy Committee AGENCY:

    Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 3, 2017, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) published a notice establishing the Royalty Policy Committee (Committee) and requesting nominations and comments. This notice extends the nomination period end date by 30 additional days.

    DATES:

    The deadline for nominations published in the notice of April 3, 2017 (82 FR 16222) is extended. Nominations for the Committee must be submitted by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit nominations by any of the following methods:

    • Mail or hand-carry nominations to Ms. Kim Oliver, Department of the Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, 1849 C Street, NW., MS 5134, Washington, DC 20240. • Email nominations to: [email protected]
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Judy Wilson, Office of Natural Resources Revenue; telephone (202) 208-4410; email: judith.wilson[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee is established under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Committee is to ensure that the public receives the full value of the natural resources produced from Federal lands. The duties of the Committee are solely advisory in nature.

    The Committee will not exceed 28 members and will be composed of Federal and non-Federal members in order to ensure fair and balanced representation.

    The Secretary will appoint non-Federal members in the following categories:

    • Up to six members representing the Governors of States that receive more than $10,000,000 annually in royalty revenues from onshore and offshore Federal leases • Up to four members representing the Indian Tribes that are engaged in activities subject to laws relating to mineral development that is specific to one or more Indian Tribes • Up to six members representing various mineral and/or energy stakeholders in Federal and Indian royalty policy • Up to four members representing academia and public interest groups Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable DOI to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Committee and to permit DOI to contact a potential member. If you already submitted a nomination by one of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice, you need not re-submit the nomination. We will consider all nominations received by these methods from April 3, 2017 through July 3, 2017. Additional information is available in the Royalty Policy Committee Establishment; Request for Nominations notice published on April 3, 2017 (82 FR 16222).

    Public Disclosure of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire nomination submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your submission to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Gregory J. Gould, Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11441 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 2017 Final Fee Rate and Fingerprint Fees AGENCY:

    National Indian Gaming Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 25 CFR 514.2, that the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted its 2017 final annual fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.062% (.00062) for tier 2, which remain the same as the 2017 preliminary fee rates. The tier 2 annual fee rate maintains the lowest fee rate adopted by the Commission since 2010. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission. If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation under 25 CFR part 518, the 2017 final fee rate on Class II revenues shall be 0.031% (.00031) which is one-half of the annual fee rate. The final fee rates being adopted here are effective June 1, 2017, and will remain in effect until new rates are adopted.

    Pursuant to 25 CFR 514.16, the National Indian Gaming Commission has also adopted its 2017 final fingerprint processing fees of $18 per card effective June 1, 2017. These fees remain the same as the 2017 preliminary fingerprint processing fees.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yvonne Lee, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established the National Indian Gaming Commission, which is charged with regulating gaming on Indian lands.

    Commission regulations (25 CFR part 514) provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates and the gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to the Commission. All gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission are required to self-administer the provisions of these regulations, and report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission.

    Pursuant to 25 CFR part 514, the Commission must also review regularly the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and set a fee based on fees charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and costs incurred by the Commission. Commission costs include Commission personnel, supplies, equipment costs, and postage to submit the results to the requesting tribe.

    Dated: May 25, 2017. Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri, Chairman. Dated: May 25, 2017. Kathryn C. Isom-Clause, Vice Chair. Dated: May 25, 2017. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Associate Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11434 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23210; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lava Beds National Monument, Tulelake, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lava Beds National Monument has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Lava Beds National Monument. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lava Beds National Monument at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Lawrence J. Whalon Jr., Superintendent, Lava Beds National Monument, P.O. Box 1240, Tulelake, CA 96134, telephone (530) 677-8101, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lava Beds National Monument, Tulelake, CA, and in the physical custody of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from within the boundaries of Lava Beds National Monument, Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Lava Beds National Monument.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Lava Beds National Monument professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Klamath Tribes and The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site CA-SIS-0142 in Siskiyou County, CA, during legally authorized excavations by Robert J. Squier and Gordon L. Grosscup under the auspices of the Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site CA-MOD-0048 in Modoc County, CA, during legally authorized excavations by Robert J. Squier and Gordon L. Grosscup under the auspices of the Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, 14 individuals were removed from site CA-MOD-0049 in Modoc County, CA, during legally authorized excavations by Robert J. Squier and Gordon L. Grosscup under the auspices of the Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA. No known individuals were identified. The 15 associated funerary objects are 3 cordage fragments, 1 projectile point fragment, 2 scrapers, 3 basketry fragments, 1 charcoal fragment, and 5 matting fragments.

    Based on burial type and location, as well as available archeological and historical information, it is likely that the remains are Native American. Artifacts found near the burial locations suggest a late prehistoric age and are characteristic of prehistoric Modoc funerary practices in this region. In addition, ethnographic and archeological evidence, including archeological site context and types of funerary objects, indicates that all three sites were occupied by ancestral Modoc peoples.

    During consultation, representatives from associated tribes stated that their oral traditions indicate affiliation with the Modoc. The Modoc have been identified as aboriginal to the area where the three sites are located by the U.S. Indian Claims Commission. Geographical, archeological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, and historical evidence support that association. Today, contemporary descendants of the Modoc are members of both the Klamath Tribes and The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma.

    Determinations Made by Lava Beds National Monument

    Officials of Lava Beds National Monument have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 18 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 15 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Klamath Tribes and The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lawrence J. Whalon Jr., Superintendent, Lava Beds National Monument, P.O. Box 1240, Tulelake, CA 96134, telephone (530) 677-8101, email [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Klamath Tribes and The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma may proceed.

    Lava Beds National Monument is responsible for notifying the Klamath Tribes and The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11454 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23203; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Ocmulgee National Monument. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ocmulgee National Monument at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Funeral Mound, Bibb County, GA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Ocmulgee National Monument professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina), Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

    History and Description of the Remains

    Between 1933 and 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Funeral Mound C in Bibb County, GA, during legally authorized projects sponsored by the Works Progress Administration. No known individuals were identified. The 42 associated funerary objects are 1 adz, 1 biface, 1 bowl, 1 animal bone, 2 gorgets, 1 jar, 1 elbow pipe, 2 projectile points, 4 scrapers, 1 piece of shatter, 2 worked shells, 5 spoons, and 20 vessel fragments.

    While Mound C is a burial mound dating to the Macon Plateau phase of the Early Mississippian period (A.D. 900 to A.D. 1100), several historic burials were placed in the upper levels of the mound and in the adjacent village area. Burials excavated at this site were identified as historic Creek on the basis of European trade goods found in association with the remains. The historic Creek town associated with the trading post near Mound C has long been thought to be Ocmulgee. Residents of Ocmulgee moved to the Chattahoochee River after 1717.

    Historical documentation reflects a great deal of movement and reorganization among the Creeks and the Creek Confederacy during the 18th and 19th centuries. Ten present-day Indian tribes include Creek descendants—the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

    Determinations Made by Ocmulgee National Monument

    Officials of Ocmulgee National Monument have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 42 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town may proceed.

    Ocmulgee National Monument is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina), Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11448 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23291; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, KS AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Kansas State Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Kansas State Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Kansas State Historical Society at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. Robert J. Hoard, Kansas State Historical Society, 6425 SW. 6th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66615-1099, telephone (785) 272-8681, extension 269, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, KS. The human remains were removed from site 14SH305 in Shawnee County, KS.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Kansas State Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.

    History and Description of the Remains

    On June 12, 2012, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from midden area 230 of site 14SH305 in Shawnee County, KS, during excavation of the site. Excavation in the immediate area ceased and the Shawnee County Sheriff was contacted (case no. 12-03361). Further excavation in site 14SH305 found no other human remains. No other provenience information is available. The human remains consist of one molar tooth. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In or about 2013, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from feature 303 of site 14SH305 by an analyst while sorting very small skeletal remains. No other provenience information is available. The human remains consist of two human phalanges. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Site 14SH305 is a known historic Kansa village, specifically Fool Chief's Village. Based on historical sources, it was originally recorded as an archeological site by Kansas State Archeologist Roscoe Wilmeth in 1957. The village was part of the Kansa Reservation, and was occupied from 1828 to 1844 by approximately 700-800 members of the Kansa tribe. In 2012 and 2013, the Kansas Historical Society conducted archeological excavations of the site in order to mitigate the effects of Kansas Department of Transportation Project Number 24-89 K-7431-01. The present-day descendants of the Kansa are the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.

    Determinations Made by the Kansas State Historical Society

    Officials of the Kansas State Historical Society have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Robert J. Hoard, Kansas State Historical Society, 6425 SW. 6th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66615-1099, telephone (785) 272-8681, extension 269, [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma may proceed.

    The Kansas State Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 21, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11446 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23205; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to Ocmulgee National Monument. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ocmulgee National Monument at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    Between 1933 and 1958, 25,127 cultural items were removed from the Trading Post area of the Macon Plateau in Bibb County, GA, during multiple legally authorized excavations. The human remains were repatriated to culturally affiliated tribes in 2015 by the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History. The 25,127 unassociated funerary objects are 2 abraders, 2 armbands, 41 balls, 22,045 beads, 16 bells, 10 bifaces, 499 animal remains, 3 bags of animal bone, 1 liquor bottle, 2 bowls, 1 bullet, 33 buttons, 5 charcoal fragments, 1 chopper, 29 pieces of fired clay, 2 pieces of unfired clay, 10 concretions, 3 cores, 2 cuff links, 11 pieces of daub, 101 pieces of debitage, 303 flakes, 28 flake tools, 2 flat rectangular copper fragments, 98 shells, 1 glass fragment, 1 gorget, 1 graver, 6 gun flints, 1 knife, 2 metal fragments, 1 metal pendant, 1 mug, 4 musket balls, 3 nails, 2 plant fragments, 1 nutting stone, 1 pipe, 15 projectile points, 7 preforms, 1 rivet, 5 scrapers, 1 seed, 33 pieces of shatter, 2 bags of shell, 2 worked shells, 4 pieces of slag, 1 spiral spring, 53 unmodified stones, 2 sword fragments, 3 tobacco pipes, 1 tack, 1 bag of unmodified stone, 1,705 vessel fragments, 5 windowpane fragments, 6 wires, 1 worked stone, and 4 flintlock muskets.

    The trading post at Macon was operated by the British from 1685-1717. The historic Creek town associated with the trading post has long been thought to have been Ocmulgee. Burials excavated at this site were identified as historic Creek on the basis of European trade goods found in association with the remains. Residents of the Creek town of Ocmulgee moved to the Chattahoochee River after 1717. Historical documentation reflects a great deal of movement and reorganization among the Creeks and the Creek Confederacy during the 18th and 19th centuries. Ten present-day Indian tribes are thought to include Creek descendants including the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks, Seminole Tribe of Florida, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

    Determinations Made by Ocmulgee National Monument

    Officials of Ocmulgee National Monument have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 25,127 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town may proceed.

    Ocmulgee National Monument is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina), Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11451 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23204; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA; Correction AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register on June 18, 2001. This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Ocmulgee National Monument. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ocmulgee National Monument at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Lamar Mounds and Village, Bibb County, GA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument.

    This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (66 FR 32838-32840, June 18, 2001). During review of collections additional associated funerary objects were identified and some objects were determined to be unassociated funerary objects. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register (66 FR 32838, June 18, 2001), column 3, paragraph 4, sentence 3 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

    The 65 associated funerary objects are 1 bead, 1 biface, 21 animal bones, 1 celt, 1 core, 1 ear plug, 1 shell, 12 pins, 1 tobacco pipe, 1 projectile point, 1 paint pot, 8 unmodified stones, 1 flake tool, and 14 vessel fragments.

    In the Federal Register (66 FR 32839, June 18, 2001), column 2, paragraph 2, sentence 2 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

    The superintendent of Ocmulgee National Monument also has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(2), the 121 objects listed above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma may proceed.

    Ocmulgee National Monument is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina), Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11449 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23207; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, GA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to Ocmulgee National Monument. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ocmulgee National Monument at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    Between 1933 and 1938, 436 cultural items were removed from Lamar Mounds and Village in Bibb County, GA, during legally authorized projects sponsored by the Works Progress Administration. The human remains were repatriated to culturally affiliated tribes in 2015 by the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History. The 436 unassociated funerary objects are 3 awls, 25 beads, 1 bag of beads, 1 blade, 1 burin, 3 celts, 1 piece of fired clay, 1 piece of daub, 4 discoidals, 2 earplugs, 24 flakes, 2 animal bones, 5 shells, 1 gorget, 1 jar, 1 projectile point, 3 scrapers, 1 worked shell, 7 soil samples, 1 flake tool, and 348 vessel fragments.

    The Lamar Mounds and Village site consists of two mounds, A and B, and a palisaded village area. Archeological evidence indicates that the Lamar Mounds and Village site was occupied during the entire Middle and Late Mississippian periods (A.D. 1200-1650). The regional manifestation of archeological resources from the Mississippian period has been identified as the Lamar Culture. Archeological evidence indicates that the Lamar Culture ceramic types found at Lamar Mounds and Village are closely related to historic Creek and Cherokee ceramic traditions.

    The Lamar site is also believed to be the town of Ichisi (Spanish) or Ochisi (Portuguese) encountered by the Hernando de Soto expedition in 1540. Occupation of the site may have continued into the early 18th century. Between A.D. 1685 and 1717, the English used variations of the name Ochesehatchee or Ochese Creek to refer to the river later called the Ocmulgee River. The towns and people living along Ochese Creek during that period were referred to as the Ochese (various spellings) Creek Nation, the Ochese Creek people, and, finally, simply the Creeks. The word Ochese and its variations has been traced from middle Georgia to the Chattahoochee River, then to Florida, and finally to Oklahoma. A squareground of this name existed in Oklahoma until the 1950s. There is an Ochese Street in Okmulgee, Oklahoma. Ethnohistorical information indicates that the Ichisi-Ochese were probably Hitchiti speakers, which would link them directly to Hitchiti speakers among the later Seminole and Miccosukee tribes. The Ichisi-Ochese may also be linked less directly to speakers of closely related Alabama and Koasati languages among the latter-day Alabama and Coushatta tribes.

    Determinations Made by Ocmulgee National Monument

    Officials of Ocmulgee National Monument have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 436 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma may proceed.

    Ocmulgee National Monument is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina), Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11452 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23289; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, Fort Wayne, IN AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Walter Font, Curator, Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, 302 East Berry Street, Fort Wayne, IN 46802, telephone (260) 426-2882, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, Fort Wayne, IN, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    On an unknown date, two cultural items were removed from a grave in the Lakeside District of Fort Wayne, Allen County, IN. At some time prior to 1947, the funerary objects were acquired from Mr. W.T. Angel by the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society. No other provenience information is available. The 2 unassociated funerary objects are 1 animal tusk and 1 hatchet head.

    In 1928, one cultural item was removed from a grave on Prospect Avenue in Fort Wayne, Allen County, IN. In 1933, the funerary object was acquired from Mr. Theodore Waldo by the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society. No other provenience information is available. The 1 unassociated funerary object is a stone pipe bowl.

    On an unknown date, five cultural items were removed from a grave in the Spy Run District of Fort Wayne, Allen County, IN. At some time prior to 1947, the funerary objects were acquired from an unknown source by the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society. Catalog records state that the funerary objects were found in an “Indian grave in the Spy Run District, Fort Wayne.” The 5 unassociated funerary objects are 4 silver brooches and 1 brass button.

    On an unknown date, two cultural items were removed from a grave on West Washington Street in Fort Wayne, Allen County, IN. In 1934, the objects were acquired from an unknown source by the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society. Catalog records state that the funerary objects were found in a grave at “1415 W. Washington Street.” The 2 unassociated funerary objects are 2 steel strikers.

    On unknown dates, seven cultural items were removed from graves in “the Miami burial ground” in the Spy Run District of Fort Wayne, Allen County, IN. In about 1928, the funerary objects were acquired from Mr. Jacob M. Stouder, a local collector, by the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society. The 7 unassociated funerary objects are 1 set of pistol fragments, 1 tomahawk, 1 stone pipe, 2 clay pipes, and 2 stone tools.

    On an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from a grave at Lawton Place in Fort Wayne, Allen County, IN. In 1932, the funerary object was acquired from Mrs. George Gillie by the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society. No other provenience information is available. The 1 unassociated funerary object is an iron hoe blade.

    In May of 1933, 10 cultural items were removed from a grave on Prospect Avenue in Fort Wayne, Allen County, IN. In 1935, the funerary objects were purchased from Mr. Orville Smith by the Allen County Fort Wayne-Historical Society. No other provenience information is available. The 10 unassociated funerary objects are 1 set of musket fragments, 1 clay pipe, 1 metal tack hammer, 2 metal files, 2 metal harpoon tips, 1 copper tube bead, 1 pair of scissors fragments, and 1 whetstone.

    In about 1910, one cultural item was removed from Lawton Place in Fort Wayne, Allen County, IN, by Vernon Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson removed the funerary object from a grave exposed during excavation for a house basement. In 1984, the funerary object was acquired from Mr. Ferguson by the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society. The 1 unassociated funerary object is a copper pot with iron bail.

    In 1907, one cultural item was removed from the grave of Miami Indian Chief Coesse in Huntington County, IN. At some time prior to 1947, the funerary object was acquired from Mr. Charles More by the Allen County Fort Wayne-Historical Society. No other provenience information is known. Chief Coesse was a Miami Indian who resided in northeast Indiana. He died in about 1853, and was buried near Roanoke, IN, and has no known descendants. Evidence from Society records and secondary sources indicate that the unassociated funerary object is affiliated with a Miami Tribal chief. The 1 unassociated funerary object is a small glass vial containing beads.

    The above listed sites are estimated to date from the late 1700s to the early 1800s. The evidence available indicates that the sites are related to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, whose tribal lands were located in northeast Indiana from about 1710 to the early 1800s. Their villages were at or near the present location of Fort Wayne, IN, primarily north of the confluence of the St. Joseph and St. Mary's Rivers which, together, form the Maumee River. These areas include the Spy Run District, including Prospect Avenue and Lawton Place, and the Lakeside area of Fort Wayne. The assessment that these unassociated funerary objects should be attributed to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma was confirmed by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, during consultation.

    Determinations Made by the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society

    Officials of the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 30 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from specific burial sites of Native American individuals.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Walter Font, Curator, Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, 302 East Berry Street, Fort Wayne, IN 46802, telephone (260) 426-2882, email [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma may proceed.

    The Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 21, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11447 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23209; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA; Correction AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register on June 18, 2001. This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Ocmulgee National Monument. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ocmulgee National Monument at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Trading Post, Bibb County, GA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument.

    This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (66 FR 32842-32843, June 18, 2001). Additional individuals and associated funerary objects were identified during review of collections. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register (66 FR 32842, June 18, 2001), column 2, paragraph 1, sentences 1-3 are corrected by substituting the following sentences: 

    Between 1957 and 1958, human remains representing 17 individuals were recovered from the Trading Post area of the Macon Plateau unit of Ocmulgee National Monument. No known individuals were identified. The 17,037 associated funerary objects are 2 axes, 4 balls, 1 musket ball, 16,147 beads, 1 biface, 2 blades, 217 animal remains, 1 piece of charcoal, 6 pieces of fired clay, 1 concretion, 2 cores, 3 pieces of daub, 46 flakes, 7 flake tools, 2 glass fragments, 1 gorget, 5 gunflints, 1 stone knife, 38 jars, 2 iron knives, 4 metal fragments, 2 shells, 1 ornament, 4 tobacco pipes, 2 flintlock pistols, 2 plant fragments, 1 projectile point, 3 preforms, 1 rifle, 3 scrapers, 4 seeds, 3 pieces of shatter, 13 gun shots, 1 shotgun shell, 2 spiral springs, 6 unmodified stones, 1 uniface, 1 bag of unmodified stone, and 494 vessel fragments.

    In the Federal Register (66 FR 32842, June 18, 2001), column 3 paragraph 2, sentences 1-2 are corrected by substituting the following sentences:

    Based on the above-mentioned information, the superintendent of Ocmulgee National Monument has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of 21 individuals of Native American ancestry. The superintendent of Ocmulgee National Monument also has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(2), the 32,022 objects listed above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or late as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town may proceed.

    Ocmulgee National Monument is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina), Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Shawnee Tribe, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11450 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23208; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to Ocmulgee National Monument. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ocmulgee National Monument at the address in this notice by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    Between 1933 and 1934, 99 cultural items were removed from Funeral Mound C in Bibb County, GA, during legally authorized projects sponsored by the Works Progress Administration. The human remains were repatriated to culturally affiliated tribes in 2015 by the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History. The 99 unassociated funerary objects are 3 spoons, 61 beads, 1 bottle, 1 bowl, 4 vessel fragments, 1 metal fragment, 1 animal bone, 1 nail, 4 pendants, 2 projectile points, 1 scraper, 17 worked shells, 1 folding knife, and 1unmodified basalt stone.

    While Mound C is a burial mound dating to the Macon Plateau phase of the Early Mississippian period (A.D. 900 to A.D. 1100), several historic burials were placed in the upper levels of the mound and in the adjacent village area. Burials excavated at this site were identified as historic Creek on the basis of European trade goods found in association with the remains. The historic Creek town associated with the trading post near Mound C has long been thought to be Ocmulgee. Residents of Ocmulgee moved to the Chattahoochee River after 1717.

    Historical documentation reflects a great deal of movement and reorganization among the Creeks and the Creek Confederacy during the 18th and 19th centuries. Ten present-day Indian tribes include Creek descendants—the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

    Determinations Made by Ocmulgee National Monument

    Officials of Ocmulgee National Monument have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 99 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected], by July 3, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town may proceed.

    Ocmulgee National Monument is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina), Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: April 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11453 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-17-025] Government In The Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    Time and Date:

    June 9, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

    Place:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    Status:

    Open to the public.

    Matters to be Considered:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-578 and 731-TA-1368 (Preliminary)(100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on June 12, 2017; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be complete and filed on June 19, 2017.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 30, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11568 Filed 5-31-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1059] Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 28, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Carl Zeiss AG of Germany and ASML Netherlands B.V. of the Netherlands. A supplement to the complaint was filed on May 17, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital cameras, software, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,301,440 (“the '440 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,463,163 (“the '163 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,714,241 (“the '241 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,731,335 (“the '335 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,834,128 (“the '128 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,297,916 (“the '916 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,933,454 (“the '454 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Hiner, Office of the Secretary, Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on May 26, 2017, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital cameras, software, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21-28, 30-35, 37-44, 46-50, and 52-56 of the '440 patent; claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 14-16, and 19 of the '163 patent; claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 of the '241 patent; claims 1-12 of the '335 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19 of the '128 patent; claims 1-9 of the '916 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 16-28 of the '454 patent, and whether an industry in the United States is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    Carl Zeiss AG, Carl-Zeiss-Straße, Oberkochen, Germany 73447. ASML Netherlands B.V., De Run 6501, 5504DR, Veldhoven, Netherlands.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Nikon Corporation, Shinagawa Intercity Tower C, 2-15-3, Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-6290, Japan. Sendai Nikon Corporation, 277, Aza-hara, Tako, Natori, Miyagi 981-1221, Japan. Nikon Inc., 1300 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 11747-3064. Nikon (Thailand) Co., Ltd., 1/42 Moo 5, Rojana Industrial Park, Rojana Road, Tambol Kanham, Amphur U-Thai, Ayutthaya 13210, Thailand. Nikon Imaging (China) Co., Ltd., No. 11, Changjian South Road, New District, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214028, China. PT Nikon Indonesia, 35th Floor, Wisma 46-Kota BNI, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 1, Jakarta, 10220, Indonesia.

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 26, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11390 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-575 and 731-TA-1360-1361 (Preliminary)] Tool Chests and Cabinets From China and Vietnam Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of tool chests and cabinets from China and Vietnam, provided for in subheadings 7326.90.35, 7326.90.86, and 9403.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and to be subsidized by the government of China.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigations

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Background

    On April 11, 2017, Waterloo Industries, Inc., Sedalia, Missouri filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports of tool chests and cabinets from China and LTFV imports of tool chests and cabinets from Vietnam. Accordingly, effective April 11, 2017, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-575 and antidumping duty investigations Nos. 731-TA-1360-1361 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of April 18, 2017 (82 FR 18309). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on May 26, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4697 (June 2017), entitled Tool Chests and Cabinets from China and Vietnam: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-575 and 731-TA-1360-1361 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 26, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11391 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1117-0043] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Extension With or Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection: Drug Questionnaire (DEA-341) AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until July 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Diane E. Filler, Assistant Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Human Resources Division, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Drug Questionnaire.

    (3) Agency form number, if any and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is DEA-341. The sponsoring component is the Drug Enforcement Administration

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals. Other: None.

    DEA is requesting an extension of a currently approved collection. This collection requires the drug history of any individual seeking employment with DEA. DEA policy states that a past history of illegal drug use may result in ineligibility for employment. The form asks job applicants specific questions about their personal history, if any, of illegal drug use.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that 15,000 respondents will complete each form in approximately 5 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 1,250 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11409 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0277] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of Currently Approved Collection #1121-0277: OJJDP National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) Feedback Form Package AGENCY:

    Office for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2017 allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional days until July 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Linda Rosen, Training and Technical Assistance Specialist at 1-202-353-9222, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20530 or by email at [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officers, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and/or —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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    (2) The Title of the Form/Collection: OJJDP NTTAC Feedback Form Package.

    (3) The agency form number: OJJDP NTTAC, all forms included in package #1121-0277.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: State, Local, or Tribal.

    Other: Federal Government, Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions; Businesses or other for-profit.

    Abstract: The Office for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) Feedback Form Package is designed to collect in-person and online data necessary to continuously assess the outcomes of the assistance provided for both monitoring and accountability purposes and for continuously assessing and meeting the needs of the field. OJJDP NTTAC will send these forms to technical assistance (TA) recipients; conference attendees; training and TA providers; online meeting participants; in-person meeting participants; and focus group participants to capture important feedback on the recipients' satisfaction with the quality, efficiency, referrals, information and resources provided and assess the recipients' additional training and TA needs. The data will then be used to advise NTTAC on ways to improve the support provided to its users; the juvenile justice field at-large; and ultimately improve services and outcomes for youth.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 5,140 respondents will complete forms and the response time will range from .03 hours to 1.5 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 470.83 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11410 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201703-1220-001 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services. Each month, BLS data collectors (economic assistants) visit or call thousands of retail stores, service establishments, rental units, and doctors' offices, all over the United States to obtain information on the prices of the thousands of items used to track and measure price changes in the CPI. The collection of price data from retail establishments is essential for the timely and accurate calculation of the commodities and services component of the CPI. The CPI is then widely used as a measure of inflation, indicator of the effectiveness of government economic policy, deflator for other economic series, and as a means of adjusting dollar values. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the BLS will introduce a new geographic area sample for the CPI in January 2018. The new sample consists of 75 urban areas, while the current sample consists of 87 urban areas. The BLS Authorizing Statute authorizes this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 1, 2.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1220-0039. The current approval is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017; however, the DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. New requirements would only take effect upon OMB approval. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2017 (82 FR 12471).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1220-0039. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-BLS.

    Title of Collection: Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 1220-0039.

    Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; and Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 47,095.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 323,511.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 114,492 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Dated: May 26, 2017. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11432 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2017-0008] California State Plan; New Operational Status Agreement AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces a new Operational Status Agreement between the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the California State Plan, which specifies the respective areas of federal and state authority, and which clarifies California's coverage over maritime employment and OSHA's coverage over private employers on military installations and federal parks, and under which OSHA gains coverage over private and tribal employers on U.S. Government-recognized Native American reservations and trust lands.

    DATES:

    Effective June 2, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For press inquiries: Francis Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

    For general and technical information: Douglas J. Kalinowski, Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2200; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The California State Plan (Cal/OSHA) administers an OSHA-approved State Plan to develop and enforce occupational safety and health standards for private-sector and state and local government employers pursuant to the provisions of section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 667. The California State Plan received initial federal OSHA plan approval on May 1, 1973 (38 FR 10719) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health of the California Department of Industrial Relations is designated as the state agency responsible for administering the State Plan. On October 3, 1989, an Operational Status Agreement was entered into between OSHA and Cal/OSHA whereby concurrent federal enforcement authority was suspended with regard to federal occupational safety and health standards in issues covered by the State Plan. Federal OSHA retained its authority over occupational safety and health with regard to federal government employers and employees, and employees of the U.S. Postal Service (effective June 9, 2000). OSHA also retained its authority over private-sector maritime employment on the navigable waters of the United States; private-sector contractors on federal installations; whistleblower complaints under Section 11(c) of the Act; emergency temporary standards; and employers manufacturing explosives for the U.S. Department of Defense. Notice of this OSA was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 1990 (55 FR 28613), and there were subsequent minor amendments to the OSA. That 1990 Federal Register Notice contained a full history of the California State Plan.

    Notice of New Operational Status Agreement

    OSHA and Cal/OSHA signed a new OSA on April 30, 2014, which replaced the prior 1989 OSA. This new OSA clarified that concurrent federal enforcement authority would not be initiated with regard to any federal occupational safety and health standards in issues covered by the State Plan. Under the 2014 OSA, Federal OSHA retained coverage over all Federal employees and sites (including the United States Postal Service (USPS), USPS contract employees, and contractor-operated facilities engaged in USPS mail operations). The OSA also clarified that federal OSHA has enforcement authority over private-sector employers within the borders of all military installations and within U.S. National Parks, National Monuments, National Memorials, and National Recreational Areas in California. Further, OSHA gained enforcement authority over private-sector and tribal employers within U.S. Government-recognized Native American reservations and trust lands. Under the 2014 OSA, Federal OSHA retained authority over maritime employment (except marine construction on bridges and on shore) on the navigable waters of the United States and over whistleblower complaints under Section 11(c) of the Act. The 2014 OSA also did not contain the language from the 1989 OSA about specific elements of the Cal/OSHA program that had achieved operational status.

    Federal OSHA and Cal/OSHA will exercise their respective enforcement authority according to the terms of the 2014 OSA between OSHA and Cal/OSHA. All terms of the 2014 OSA remain in effect. Additional information about this OSA is available at https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/california.html.

    Authority and Signature

    Dorothy Dougherty, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified by section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part 1902 and 1953

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 25, 2017. Dorothy Dougherty, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11422 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (17-031)] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to NASA Paperwork Reduction Act Clearance Officer, Code JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001 or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Ms. Frances Teel, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JF000, Washington, DC 20546, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    NASA's Ames Research Center, Human Systems Integration Division manages the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) under an Interagency Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

    The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) is an open, voluntary reporting system for any person in National Airspace System to report safety incidents, events, or situations. Respondents include but are not limited to commercial and general aviation pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, maintenance technicians, dispatchers, and other members of the public. The ASRS database is a public repository which serves the FAA, NASA, and other organizations world-wide which are engaged in research and the promotion of safe flight. ASRS data are used to (1) Identify deficiencies and discrepancies in the National Aviation System (NAS) so that these can be remedied by appropriate authorities, (2) Support policy formulation and planning for, and improvements to, the NAS, and, (3) Strengthen the foundation of aviation human factors safety research. Respondents are not reimbursed for associated cost to provide the information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.

    II. Method of Collection

    NASA collects this information electronically and that is the preferred manner, however information may also be collected via mail or fax.

    III. Data

    Title: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System.

    OMB Number: 2700-XXXX.

    Type of Review: Existing Information Collection in use without OMB Approval.

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 92,228.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 46,114 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $3.0M.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NSA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.

    Frances Teel, NASA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11423 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Arts.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection on arts participation in the U.S.: Clearance Request for NEA 2018-2019 Annual Arts Basic Survey. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by visiting www.Reginfo.gov.

    DATES:

    Comments should be sent by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments concerning this Notice to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the National Endowment for the Arts, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202/395-7316.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Agency: National Endowment for the Arts.

    Title: 2018-2019 Annual Arts Basic Survey.

    OMB Number: New.

    Frequency: Annually, in years the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts is not conducted.

    Affected Public: American adults.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 36,000.

    Estimated time per respondent: 4.0 minutes.

    Total burden hours: 2,000 hours.

    Total annualized capital/startup costs: 0.

    Total annual costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services): 0.

    Description: This request is for clearance of the 2018 and 2019 Annual Arts Basic Surveys (AABS). These surveys will be conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to the Bureau of Labor Statistic's Current Population Survey. The AABS will be conducted in February 2018 and February 2019 and are expected to conducted annually thereafter in years that the National Endowment for the Arts' (NEA) Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA) is not conducted. One of the strengths of the AABS surveys is that they will both complement and supplement the information collected in the SPPA. The SPPA is the field's premiere repeated cross-sectional survey of individual attendance and involvement in arts and cultural activity, and is conducted approximately every five years. The AABS questionnaires are much shorter than the SPPA, consisting of 12 to 14 questions that will be used to track arts participation over time. As with the SPPA, the AABS data will be circulated to interested researchers and will be the basis for a range of NEA reports and independent research publications. Reports on these data will be made publicly available on the NEA's Web site. The AABS will provide annual primary knowledge on the extent and nature of participation in the arts in the United States. These data will also be used by the NEA as a contextual measure for one of the strategic goals identified in its FY 2014-FY 2018 strategic plan.

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Kathy Daum, Director, Administrative Services, National Endowment for the Arts.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11405 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: Multi-State Plan Program External Review Case Intake Form, OPM Form 1840 AGENCY:

    Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revision of a currently approved collection, the Multi-State Plan Program External Review Intake Form, OPM Form 1840. This approval is necessary to improve the collection of information from members of the Multi-State Plan Program who need to request the external review of a disputed adverse benefit decision.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted until July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send or deliver comments to: Donna Lease Batdorf, Multi-State Plan Program, National Healthcare Operations, Healthcare and Insurance, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3468, Washington, DC 20415; and Charlie Cutshaw, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For copies of this proposal, contact C.C. “Corky” Conyers, Ph.D., C.I.O. P.R.A./Forms Officer at (202) 606-0125, or via email to [email protected] Please include a mailing address with your request.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The previous collection (OMB No. 3206-0263) was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2013 at 78 FR 70598. Approximately 800 respondents will complete the Multi-State Plan Program External Review Intake Form, OPM Form 1840 on a yearly basis. We estimate it will take 60 minutes to complete the OPM Form 1840. The annual estimated burden is 800 hours.

    Comments are particularly invited on:

    1. Whether this collectio