Federal Register Vol. 82, No.107,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 107 (June 6, 2017)

Page Range25931-26334
FR Document

82_FR_107
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 26203 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 26144 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 26080 - List of Correspondence From January 1, 2016, Through March 31, 2016, and April 1, 2016, Through June 30, 2016PDF
82 FR 26107 - Nurse Education, Practice, Quality and Retention-Veteran's Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing ProgramPDF
82 FR 26107 - Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Part C Early Intervention Services Grant Under the Ryan White HIV/AIDS ProgramPDF
82 FR 26116 - Solicitation of Appointment Nominations to the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 26089 - Public Water Supply Supervision Program; Program Revision for the State of WashingtonPDF
82 FR 26101 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Final Determinations in New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin IslandsPDF
82 FR 26111 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting [Additional Information for the Public]PDF
82 FR 26089 - Notice of Tentative Approval and Opportunity for Public Comment and Public Hearing for Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for VirginiaPDF
82 FR 26100 - Notification of a Public Meeting of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Methods PanelPDF
82 FR 26086 - FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Ad Hoc Expert NominationsPDF
82 FR 26097 - FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Ad Hoc Expert NominationsPDF
82 FR 26092 - Thirty-First Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance DocketPDF
82 FR 26206 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Cristóbal de Villalpando: Mexican Painter of the Baroque” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 26096 - Notice of Approval of Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility (PSD Permit No. NU 05-01)PDF
82 FR 26090 - Adequacy Determination for the Oakridge-Westfir, Oregon PM2.5PDF
82 FR 26102 - Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 52PDF
82 FR 26085 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB)PDF
82 FR 26144 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
82 FR 25992 - Attainment Date Extensions for the Logan, Utah-Idaho 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment AreaPDF
82 FR 26122 - National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board; MeetingPDF
82 FR 26240 - Veterans and Community Oversight and Engagement Board; Amended: Notice of EstablishmentPDF
82 FR 25973 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR® Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7PDF
82 FR 25996 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
82 FR 25931 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR® Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7PDF
82 FR 26128 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
82 FR 26207 - Issuance of Presidential Permit to the Otay Water District To Construct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain Cross-Border Water Pipeline Facilities for the Importation of Desalinated Seawater at the International Boundary Between the United States and Mexico in San Diego County, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 26052 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
82 FR 26239 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order of October 27, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”PDF
82 FR 26046 - Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 26049 - Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
82 FR 26048 - Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
82 FR 26060 - Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 26050 - Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2016PDF
82 FR 26044 - Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 26053 - Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 26055 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 26085 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 26081 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-521); Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 26082 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 26083 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 26084 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 26145 - Information Collection: “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging”PDF
82 FR 26102 - Notice of Agreement FiledPDF
82 FR 26120 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Respirator Programs RecordsPDF
82 FR 26238 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to an Executive Order Issued on January 23, 1995, Titled “Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process”PDF
82 FR 26119 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2017-2018PDF
82 FR 26118 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Submission for Review: Electronic Submission Form for Requests for Corrective Action, Whistleblower Protection for Federal Bureau of Investigation EmployeesPDF
82 FR 26081 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Study of Weighted Student Funding and School-Based Systems (Study Instruments)PDF
82 FR 26218 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
82 FR 26217 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
82 FR 26217 - Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers; American Pyrotechnics Assoc. (APA) Application for Exemption From the 14-Hour Rule; Request To Add New Member to Current APA Exemption; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 26210 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
82 FR 26231 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
82 FR 26220 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)PDF
82 FR 26063 - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Dismantling of the Original East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay BridgePDF
82 FR 26206 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Mystical Symbolism: The Salon de la Rose+Croix in Paris, 1892-1897” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 26224 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
82 FR 26232 - Hours of Service of Drivers; Pilot Program To Allow Commercial Drivers To Split Sleeper Berth TimePDF
82 FR 26219 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
82 FR 26211 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 26042 - National Organic Standards Board (NOSB): Call for NominationsPDF
82 FR 26226 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 26222 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
82 FR 26237 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: War Risk Insurance, Applications and Related InformationPDF
82 FR 26240 - Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Solicitation of Nomination for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Women VeteransPDF
82 FR 25960 - Special Local Regulation; Coos Bay, North Bend, ORPDF
82 FR 26079 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License: Evolva, Inc.PDF
82 FR 26114 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 26043 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 26099 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of UtahPDF
82 FR 26061 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS)PDF
82 FR 26062 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) ProgramPDF
82 FR 26102 - CMI Distribution Inc. v. Service by Air, Inc., Radiant Customs Services Inc. (Formerly Known as SBA Consolidators, Inc.) and Las Freight Systems Ltd.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and AssignmentPDF
82 FR 25946 - Airworthiness Directives; NavWorx, Inc. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast Universal Access Transceiver UnitsPDF
82 FR 26091 - Granting Petitions To Add n-Propyl Bromide to the List of Hazardous Air PollutantsPDF
82 FR 26238 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
82 FR 25962 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis and St. Paul, MNPDF
82 FR 25964 - Safety Zone; PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom, Ohio River, Miles 25.2 to 25.6, Beaver, PAPDF
82 FR 25965 - Safety Zones; Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones UpdatePDF
82 FR 26043 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 26042 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 26119 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
82 FR 26118 - Cased Pencils From China; Cancellation of Hearing for Full Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 26117 - Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof; Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion for Limited InterventionPDF
82 FR 26105 - Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS)PDF
82 FR 26175 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7260 by Extending the Penny Pilot Program Through December 31, 2017PDF
82 FR 26168 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program To Quote and To Trade Certain Options Classes in Penny IncrementsPDF
82 FR 26203 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program To Quote and To Trade Certain Options Classes in Penny IncrementsPDF
82 FR 26147 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Shorten the Standard Settlement Cycle From Three Business Days After the Trade Date to Two Business Days After the Trade DatePDF
82 FR 26201 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter VI, Section 5PDF
82 FR 26169 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program To Quote and To Trade Certain Options Classes in Penny IncrementsPDF
82 FR 26148 - Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.PDF
82 FR 26177 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
82 FR 26171 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Openings in Options RulePDF
82 FR 26196 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to ICC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework and ICC's Stress Testing FrameworkPDF
82 FR 26091 - Adequacy Status of the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Texas Reasonable Further Progress 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity PurposesPDF
82 FR 26122 - Advisory Committee on the Records of CongressPDF
82 FR 26103 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 26112 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 26109 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 26109 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 26109 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 26110 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 26112 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 26112 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 26113 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 26108 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 26113 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 26106 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 26121 - Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)PDF
82 FR 26105 - Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 26146 - Public Inquiry on City Carrier CostsPDF
82 FR 26209 - Notice of Intent To Rule on a Land Release Request at Albany International Airport, Albany, NY.PDF
82 FR 26208 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs, Colorado.PDF
82 FR 26108 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 26147 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 26171 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Withdrawal of the Twenty-Second Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Thirteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ PlanPDF
82 FR 26019 - Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2017PDF
82 FR 25999 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2PDF
82 FR 26007 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2PDF
82 FR 25969 - Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source Orders; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 26244 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the Atlantic OceanPDF
82 FR 26205 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 5735PDF
82 FR 25989 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Wellsboro, PAPDF
82 FR 25958 - Amendment of Class E Airspace, Bar Harbor, MEPDF
82 FR 25991 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Picayune, MSPDF
82 FR 25988 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Columbia, MSPDF
82 FR 25959 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kyle-Oakley Field Airport, Murray, KYPDF
82 FR 25954 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25940 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25943 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25980 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25986 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25975 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
82 FR 25983 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 26017 - Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source CategoryPDF
82 FR 26123 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards InformationPDF
82 FR 25978 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS)PDF
82 FR 25936 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 26016 - Approval and Promulgation of State Plans (Negative Declarations) for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Revisions to State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: New HampshirePDF
82 FR 25969 - Approval and Promulgation of State Plans (Negative Declarations) for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Revisions to State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: New HampshirePDF

Issue

82 107 Tuesday, June 6, 2017 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee, 26105 2017-11587 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Organic Standards Board, 26042 2017-11639 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support, 26105-26106 2017-11613 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26106-26107 2017-11589 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Tennessee Advisory Committee, 26042-26043 2017-11617 2017-11618 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update, 25965-25969 2017-11619 PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom, Ohio River, Miles 25.2 to 25.6, Beaver, PA, 25964-25965 2017-11620 Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN, 25962-25964 2017-11621 Special Local Regulations: Coos Bay, North Bend, OR, 25960-25962 2017-11634 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 26043-26044 2017-11631 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Study of Weighted Student Funding and School-Based Systems (Study Instruments), 26081 2017-11653 List of Correspondence: January 1, 2016, through March 31, 2016, April 1, 2016, through June 30, 2016, 26080-26081 2017-11713 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Connecticut; Approval of Single Source Orders; Correction, 25969 2017-11571 Approval and Promulgation of State Plans (Negative Declarations) for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Revisions to State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: New Hampshire, 25969-25972 2017-10916 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Attainment Date Extensions for the Logan, Utah-Idaho 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area, 25992-25996 2017-11686 California; South Coast Air Quality Management District, 25996-25999 2017-11681 Colorado; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 25999-26007 2017-11574 South Dakota; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 26007-26016 2017-11573 Approval and Promulgation of State Plans (Negative Declarations) for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Revisions to State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: New Hampshire, 26016 2017-10917 Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, 26017-26019 2017-11221 NOTICES Adequacy Determinations: Oakridge-Westfir, OR PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes, 26090 2017-11690 Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes: Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Texas Reasonable Further Progress 8-Hour Ozone, 26091-26092 2017-11602 Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit; Approvals: McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility, 26096-26097 2017-11691 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, UT, 26099-26100 2017-11629 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants: Granting Petitions to Add n-Propyl Bromide, 26091 2017-11623 Meetings: Chartered Science Advisory Board, 26085-26086 2017-11688 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel; Request for Ad Hoc Expert Nominations, 26086-26089, 26097-26099 2017-11694 2017-11697 Science Advisory Board, Risk and Technology Review Methods Panel, 26100-26101 2017-11701 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Final Determinations: New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, 26101-26102 2017-11704 Public Hearings: Virginia; Public Water System Supervision Program Revision, 26089-26090 2017-11702 Public Water System Supervision Program; Revisions: Washington, 26089 2017-11705 Thirty-first Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, 26092-26096 2017-11693 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Guidance: Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, 26102 2017-11689 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 25936-25943 2017-11129 2017-11290 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 25943-25946 2017-11289 NavWorx, Inc. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast Universal Access Transceiver Units, 25946-25954 2017-11625 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 25954-25958 2017-11291 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Bar Harbor, ME, 25958-25959 2017-11386 Kyle-Oakley Field Airport, Murray, KY, 25959-25960 2017-11377 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 25975-25978, 25980-25983, 25986-25988 2017-11259 2017-11260 2017-11261 Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS), 25978-25980 2017-11174 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 25983-25986 2017-11258 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Wellsboro, PA, 25989-25991 2017-11392 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Columbia, MS, 25988-25989 2017-11378 Picayune, MS, 25991-25992 2017-11382 NOTICES Airport Property Releases: Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs, CO, 26208-26209 2017-11584 Land Releases: Albany International Airport, Albany, NY, 26209-26210 2017-11585 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2017, 26019-26041 2017-11578 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26081-26082 2017-11663 Combined Filings, 26082-26085 2017-11660 2017-11661 2017-11662 2017-11664 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 26102-26103 2017-11658 Complaints: CMI Distribution Inc. v. Service by Air, Inc., Radiant Customs Services Inc. (formerly known as SBA Consolidators, Inc.) and Las Freight Systems Ltd., 26102 2017-11626 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Commercial Driver's Licenses; Exemption Applications: Daimler Trucks North America, 26220-26222 2017-11647 Hours of Service of Drivers: Pilot Program to Allow Commercial Drivers to Split Sleeper Berth Time, 26232-26237 2017-11642 Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: American Pyrotechnics Assoc. Exemption from 14-Hour Rule; Request to Add New Member to Current Exemption; Correction, 26217 2017-11650 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 26219-26220, 26222-26224 2017-11637 2017-11641 Diabetes Mellitus, 26211-26217, 26226-26231 2017-11638 2017-11640 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 26210, 26217-26219 2017-11649 2017-11651 2017-11652 Vision, 26224-26226, 26231-26232 2017-11643 2017-11648 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26103-26105 2017-11600 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 26238-26240 2017-11622 2017-11656 2017-11673 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26108 2017-11583
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Grant Awards: Nurse Education, Practice, Quality and Retention—Veteran's Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing Program, 26107 2017-11708 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Part C Early Intervention Services Grant, 26107-26108 2017-11707 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee, 26116-26117 2017-11706 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2015-2016, 26055-26060 2017-11665 Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China, 26052 2017-11674 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, 26049-26050 2017-11671 Certain Steel Nails from Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Administrative Review, 2014-2016; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission, 26050-26052 2017-11668 Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan, 26060-26061 2017-11669 Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, 26046-26048 2017-11672 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Administrative Review, 2015-2016; Preliminary Results, 26044-26046 2017-11667 Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 26048-26049 2017-11670 Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey: Administrative Review; Preliminary Results, and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 26053-26055 2017-11666 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Cased Pencils from China, 26118 2017-11615 Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, 26117-26118 2017-11614 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2017-2018, 26119 2017-11655 Whistleblower Protection for Federal Bureau of Investigation Employees, 26118-26119 2017-11654 Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Air Act, 26119-26120 2017-11616 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Respirator Programs Records, 26120-26121 2017-11657
Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26237-26238 2017-11636 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board, 26122 2017-11685 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress, 26122-26123 2017-11601 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 26110-26111, 26113-26114 2017-11595 2017-11590 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 26111 2017-11703 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 26109 2017-11598 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 26113 2017-11592 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 26112 2017-11599 National Institute of Mental Health, 26108-26109 2017-11591 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 26109-26110 2017-11596 2017-11597 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 26112 2017-11593 2017-11594 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System, 26061-26062 2017-11628 Alaska Vessel Monitoring System Program, 26062-26063 2017-11627 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Dismantling of the Original East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, 26063-26079 2017-11646 Geophysical Surveys in the Atlantic Ocean, 26244-26334 2017-11542 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses; Approvals: Evolva, Inc., 26079-26080 2017-11633 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7, 25931-25935 2017-11680 PROPOSED RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7, 25973-25975 2017-11682 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging, 26145-26146 2017-11659 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 26144-26145 2017-11687 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; Biweekly Notice, 26128-26144 2017-11679 Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 26123-26128 2017-11211 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 26144 2017-11731 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health; Teleconference, 26121-26122 2017-11588 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES Public Inquiry on City Carrier Costs, 26146-26147 2017-11586 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 26147 2017-11581 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Filings: Consolidated Tape Association, 26171 2017-11580 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 26203 2017-11769 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 26148-26168 2017-11606 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 26177-26196 2017-11605 BOX Options Exchange LLC, 26175-26176 2017-11612 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 26147-26148 2017-11609 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 26196-26201 2017-11603 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 26201-26203 2017-11608 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 26203-26205 2017-11610 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 26168-26169 2017-11611 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 26169-26171 2017-11607 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 26171-26175 2017-11604 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 26205-26206 2017-11505 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Cristobal de Villalpando: Mexican Painter of the Baroque Exhibition, 26206-26207 2017-11692 Mystical Symbolism: The Salon de la Rose+Croix in Paris, 1892-1897, 26206 2017-11645 Presidential Permits: Otay Water District, 26207-26208 2017-11675 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26114-26116 2017-11632 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Charter Establishments: Veterans and Community Oversight and Engagement Board, 26240 2017-11683 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, 26240-26241 2017-11635 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 26244-26334 2017-11542 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.

82 107 Tuesday, June 6, 2017 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2017-0008] RIN 3150-AJ89 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR® Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the NAC International (NAC or the applicant), MAGNASTOR® Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1031. Amendment No. 7 provides a new Passive MAGNASTOR® Transfer Cask (PMTC) and associated Technical Specification (TS) changes in Appendices A and B, and updates Section 4.3.1(i) in Appendix A of the TSs to include revised seismic requirements. Clarifying (non-technical) changes were also made to Appendices A and B.

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective August 21, 2017, unless significant adverse comments are received by July 6, 2017. If this direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Comments received on this direct final rule will also be considered to be comments on a companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0008. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith McDaniel, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5252; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Rulemaking Procedure III. Background IV. Discussion of Changes V. Voluntary Consensus Standards VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Plain Writing VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality XIII. Congressional Review Act XIV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0008 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0008.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0008 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Rulemaking Procedure

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031 and does not include other aspects of the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on August 21, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by July 6, 2017, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the Federal Register. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the Federal Register.

III. Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), that approved the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1031.

IV. Discussion of Changes

By letter dated August 7, 2015, as supplemented on April 15, 2016, August 15, 2016, and September 7, 2016, NAC submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1031. As documented in the Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (PSER) for the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System, CoC No. 1031, and described in this direct final rule, the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC Amendment No. 7 request. The NRC staff determined that Amendment No. 7 does not change the cask design requirements and it does not change the design or fabrication of the cask. The NRC staff found that the TS changes do not impact the casks ability to continue to safely store spent fuel in accordance with 10 CFR part 72 requirements.

This direct final rule revises the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031. The amendment consists of the changes described in this section, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the PSER.

Amendment No. 7 provides a new PMTC and associated TS changes in Appendices A and B. Clarifying (non-technical) changes were also made to Appendices A and B. The PMTC is a special lifting device that is used to hold the Transportable Storage Container (TSC) during onsite loading operations, transfer operations, and unloading operations. It is designed for use in high ambient temperatures and has a large gap between the loaded TSC and the cask inner shell to allow passive convective airflow to provide cooling equivalent to that provided by the concrete cask. The PMTC has two lifting trunnions, two sliding doors supported by rails that are welded to the bottom of the cask to allow TSC transfer, and a retaining ring bolted to the top of the cask to prevent an inadvertent lift of the TSC out of the PMTC.

The NRC staff reviewed the structural design features and design criteria, together with an evaluation of the applicant's analysis, to determine the structural adequacy of the PMTC. The NRC staff evaluated aspects of the dry storage system design and analysis related to structural performance under normal and off-normal operations, accident conditions, and natural phenomena events. Based on its review, as documented in the PSER, the NRC staff has reasonable assurance that the structural design of the PMTC is in compliance with 10 CFR part 72.

The NRC staff also performed a thermal review to ensure that the MAGNASTOR® Cask System components and fuel material temperatures will remain within the allowable values for normal conditions, and off-normal and accident events. The review of Amendment No. 7 focused on the thermal analysis of a new transfer cask design. This evaluation included confirmation that the temperatures of the fuel cladding will be within acceptable limits throughout the transfer and storage periods to protect the cladding against degradation, which could lead to gross rupture. The NRC staff concluded that the thermal design of the MAGNASTOR® Cask System, including the PMTC, is in compliance with 10 CFR part 72.

The NRC staff also reviewed the applicant's shielding analysis and dose rate calculations, and determined that the approaches and methodologies used in these calculations, and the results, are acceptable for the PMTC design.

The structure, thermal, and shielding findings were reached on the basis of a review that considered the regulation itself, appropriate regulatory guides, applicable codes and standards, accepted engineering practices, and the statements and representations in the application.

Additionally, Amendment No. 7 updates Section 4.3.1(i) in Appendix A of the TSs to include revised seismic requirements for the MAGNASTOR® Cask System. The revised TS Section 4.3.1(i) states that “The maximum design basis earthquake acceleration of 0.37g in the horizontal direction (without cask sliding) and 0.25g in the vertical direction at the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) pad top surface do not result in cask tip-over.” The NRC staff determined that the revised TS continues to allow the use of the MAGNASTOR® Cask System at a location where the site earthquake parameters are up to and greater than 0.37g in the horizontal direction and 0.25g in the vertical direction at the ISFSI pad top surface. Furthermore, the revised TS continues to require the user to demonstrate that no tip-over will result from an earthquake. The NRC staff concluded that the revision is acceptable and clarifies the provision under which the MAGNASTOR® Cask System may be reasonably implemented by general licensees given the specific earthquake acceleration parameters.

The amended NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031 under 10 CFR 72.212.

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

VI. Agreement State Compatibility

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

VII. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact A. The Action

The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.

B. The Need for the Action

This direct final rule amends the CoC for the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 7 provides a new PMTC and associated TS changes in Appendices A and B, and updates Section 4.3.1(i) in Appendix A of the TSs to include revised seismic requirements. Clarifying (non-technical) changes were also made to Appendices A and B.

C. Environmental Impacts of the Action

On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 7 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 7 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The NRC staff documented its safety findings in the PSER.

D. Alternative to the Action

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 7 and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 7 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, an interested licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the action.

E. Alternative Use of Resources

Approval of Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.

F. Agencies and Persons Contacted

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

G. Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, MAGNASTOR® Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0132.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and NAC. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

XI. Regulatory Analysis

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214.

By letter dated August 7, 2015, as supplemented on April 15, 2016, August 15, 2016, and September 7, 2016, NAC submitted an application to amend the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System. This request is described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 7 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System under the changes described in Amendment No. 7 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the PSER and the environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1031 for the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Amendment No. 7 provides a new PMTC and associated TS changes in Appendices A and B, and updates Section 4.3.1(i) in Appendix A of the TSs to include revised seismic requirements. Clarifying (non-technical) changes were also made to Appendices A and B.

Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031 for the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System was initiated by NAC and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 7 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 7. These changes do not affect existing users of the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System, and Amendment Nos. 1-3, Revisions 1, as well as Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, and Amendments Nos. 4-6 continue to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 7, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the NRC staff.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

The OMB has not found this to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

XIV. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

Document ADAMS accession No. Request to Amend U.S. NRC Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 for NAC International MAGNASTOR Cask System, Letter Dated August 7, 2015 ML15225A468. NAC International, Submittal of Responses to NRC's Request for Additional Information to Amend the U.S. NRC CoC No. 1031 Related to the MAGNASTOR® Cask System, Amendment No. 7 Request, Letter Dated April 15, 2016 ML16112A029 (Package). Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information No. 2 Related to the MAGNASTOR® Cask System, Amendment No. 7 Request, CoC No. 1031, Letter Dated August 15, 2016 ML16230A543 (Package). NAC International Supplement to Submission of Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information No. 2 Related to the MAGNASTOR® Cask System, Amendment No. 7 Request, CoC No. 1031, Letter Dated September 7, 2016 ML16253A005. NAC International MAGNASTOR Storage System, Proposed CoC, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7 ML16295A243. NAC International MAGNASTOR Storage System, Proposed Tech Specs, Appendix A, Amendment No. 7 ML16295A248. NAC International MAGNASTOR Storage System, Proposed Tech Specs, Appendix B, Amendment No. 7 ML16295A252. NAC International MAGNASTOR Storage System, Proposed Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report, Amendment No. 7 ML16295A258.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-0008. The Federal Rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2017-0008); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1031 is revised to read as follows:
§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

Certificate Number: 1031.

Initial Certificate Effective Date: February 4, 2009, superseded by Initial Certificate, Revision 1, on February 1, 2016.

Initial Certificate, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 1, 2016.

Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: August 30, 2010, superseded by Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on February 1, 2016.

Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 1, 2016.

Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: January 30, 2012, superseded by Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, on February 1, 2016.

Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 1, 2016.

Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: July 25, 2013, superseded by Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, on February 1, 2016.

Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 1, 2016.

Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: April 14, 2015.

Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: June 29, 2015.

Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: December 21, 2016.

Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: August 21, 2017.

SAR Submitted by: NAC International, Inc.

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the MAGNASTOR® System.

Docket Number: 72-1031.

Certificate Expiration Date: February 4, 2029.

Model Number: MAGNASTOR®.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May, 2017.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Victor M. McCree, Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2017-11680 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8182; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-069-AD; Amendment 39-18906; AD 2017-11-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in certain pivot fittings of a CFM56 engine's thrust reverser (T/R). This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking and corrosion of certain pivot fittings of a CFM56 engine's T/R, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

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

For Goodrich Aerostructures service information identified in this final rule, contact Goodrich Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098; telephone 619-691-2719; email [email protected]; Internet https://techpubs.goodrich.com.

You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8182.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8182; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2016 (81 FR 51142). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks on the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock pivot fittings of a CFM56 engine's T/R. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking and corrosion of the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock pivot fittings of a CFM56 engine's T/R, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking and corrosion, which could lead to T/R malfunction and, in a case of rejected takeoff at V1 on a wet runway, a consequent runway excursion, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0076, dated April 18, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Several operators reported finding cracks, during an unscheduled inspection, on the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock pivot fittings of a CFM56 engine's thrust reverser (T/R). Investigation results revealed that these cracks were caused by a combination of stress and fatigue effects. Further analysis determined that only aeroplanes fitted with CFM56-5A or CFM56-5B series engines could be affected by this issue.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to T/R malfunction and, in a case of rejected take off at V1 on a wet runway, a consequent runway excursion, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2016-0068, requiring repetitive inspections [for cracks and corrosion] of the T/R pivot fittings at the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that the list of part numbers (P/N) of affected T/R pivot fitting, as identified in that [EASA] AD, was incomplete.

For the reason stated above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0068, which is superseded, but expands the list of affected fitting P/Ns.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8182.

Comments

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

Request To Revise Repetitive Inspection Interval

American Airlines (AA) requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to change the proposed repetitive inspection interval for inspecting the T/R pivot fittings from 60 months to 10 years to match certain airworthiness limitation items (ALIs). AA stated that aligning the inspection interval with existing ALIs allows accomplishment of the inspection during a shop overhaul along with other ALIs. AA stated that this will significantly reduce the burden on operators. AA explained that changing this compliance time will not affect the likelihood of fatigue cracking, since fatigue effects are cycle-based and the same cycle-threshold is maintained.

We do not agree with AA's request. EASA, as the State of Design Authority for Airbus products, has determined that the compliance time of 60 months represents the maximum interval of time allowable for the affected airplanes to continue to safely operate. This determination is based on the severity of the failure and the likelihood of the failure's occurrence, and takes into account the overall risk to the fleet. The FAA and EASA worked with Airbus to ensure that all appropriate actions are taken at the appropriate times to mitigate risk to the fleet. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of a revised inspection interval if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the inspection interval would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Use Later Revisions of Service Information

AA requested that we allow the use of later revisions of the service information for accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. AA asserted that future revisions of the referenced service information will have additional analysis and insight into the design and failure modes of the structure. Additionally, AA pointed out that the FAA will have an opportunity to object to any revisions the manufacturer proposes.

We do not agree with AA's request. We may not refer to any document in an AD that does not yet exist.

In general terms, we are required by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document only if the OFR approved it for “incorporation by reference.” See 1 CFR part 51.

To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an alternative method of compliance with this AD under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Service Information Date

AA requested that we revise the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” section of the preamble and paragraphs (g) and (j) of the proposed AD to correct the revision date specified for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015. AA pointed out that in the NPRM the release date is stated as December 18, 2015, instead of December 28, 2015.

We agree to fix the typographical error. We have revised this final rule accordingly.

Request To Clarify Which Service Information Is Required for Certain Actions

AA requested that we revise paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD to clarify that doing the actions in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD in the shop/off-wing requires only accomplishment of Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016. AA asserted that the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015, which provides open-up instructions for on-wing actions, are not necessary to comply with the proposed requirements.

We do not agree with AA's request to revise paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to clarify the required actions. However, we do agree to clarify the use of the phrase “as applicable” in paragraph (g) of this AD. The intent of using the phrase “as applicable” in paragraph (g) of this AD is not to authorize an operator to accomplish either Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015; or Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016. Operators must accomplish the actions in accordance with the applicable requirements in the Airbus service bulletin and the Goodrich Aerostructures service bulletin.

Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016, contains more detailed procedures for accomplishing certain required actions that are specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015. Therefore, operators must use both service bulletins to accomplish the AD requirements.

We also note that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015, contains Required for Compliance (RC) actions and specifies only paragraphs 3.C. and 3.D. are RC procedures. The “open-up instructions” in paragraph 3.B. of the Airbus service bulletin are not RC procedures. 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 alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

AA also requested that we revise paragraphs (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), and (k)(2)(iii) of the proposed AD to permit the use of any of the specified service information by adding the phrase “as applicable” following references to the service information. AA asserted that this revision would prevent any confusion regarding off-wing maintenance for which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015, will not be needed since the T/R is not installed on an airplane. AA stated that this revision would align the wording in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD with the wording in the first sentence of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.

We do not agree to add “as applicable” to paragraphs (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), and (k)(2)(iii) of this AD. If an operator wants to install a spare part, then they still need to perform Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016. For example, if a spare met the 60-month threshold to qualify as serviceable then operators are still required to perform the operational test of the thrust reversers after installation of the fittings. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Compliance Time in Paragraph (h)(2) of the Proposed AD

AA requested that we revise paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD to clarify that the compliance time of 7,200 flight cycles accumulated applies to the T/R and not to the airplane.

We agree that clarification is necessary. The accumulated flight cycles are on the T/R, not the airplane. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise or Remove Parts Limitation Compliance Time

AA requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the proposed AD to remove the limitation of fixing the unsafe condition on T/Rs prior to installation, as of the effective date of this AD. Rather, AA requested that we revise the compliance times to those in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD if it is determined that, prior to installation, the T/R was removed as part of an unrelated on-wing maintenance action. AA stated that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD puts a burden on operators to fix the unsafe condition on the T/R if the discrepant T/R is removed for any maintenance reason. Additionally, AA asserted that the proposed actions require special inspection equipment, inventory, consumable materials, etc., which are not readily available at all stations, in addition to the necessary labor and extensive downtime. Alternatively, AA stated that removal of paragraph (j) of the proposed AD would be acceptable.

We do not agree with AA's request. Paragraph (j) of this AD does not require immediate corrective action for a T/R that is removed for any maintenance action, unless the T/R exceeds the thresholds specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. EASA has determined that the compliance time specified in paragraph (j) of this AD should be based on the severity of the failure, the likelihood of the failure's occurrence, and the overall safety risk to the fleet. The FAA and EASA worked with Airbus to ensure that all appropriate action(s) are taken at appropriate times to mitigate risk to the fleet. This determination took into consideration parts and special tool availability, and planning for accomplishment of any necessary corrective action. Airbus did not provide us any information related to a short supply of parts or tools required for accomplishment of this AD. In addition, it is the operator's responsibility to plan appropriately for actions to be taken to assure parts and equipment are available for AD compliance. Therefore, the FAA's expectation is that, as of the effective date of this AD, operators will not install a known unsafe part as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. However, if the part is already installed and in-service, then operators may utilize the full compliance time as allowed by this AD. Operators have the option of proposing an alternative compliance time, with supportive data, in accordance with paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Permit Flights With Deactivated T/Rs

AA requested that we revise the proposed AD to allow a minimum equipment list (MEL) provision to deactivate affected T/Rs for the allowable duration of that MEL item before accomplishing the corrective actions specified in the proposed AD. AA explained that this action would provide an equivalent level of safety since, during application of the MEL, the T/Rs are deactivated and there is never a possibility of T/R structural failure due to cracking.

We agree with AA's request. We have added paragraph (i)(3) to this AD to state that it is permissible to dispatch an airplane equipped with a T/R pivot fitting(s) having a part number specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, provided the limitations in Master Minimum Equipment List Item 78-30-01 (which provides for deactivation of the affected T/R) have been followed.

Request To Provide a Provision for Special Flight Permits

AA requested that the proposed AD be revised to include an allowance for special flight permits to allow the operator to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of the proposed AD can be accomplished.

We acknowledge the potential need for a one-time ferry flight. Although not specifically stated in the proposed AD, there is no restriction prohibiting or limiting special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199). Therefore, we have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015. This service information describes procedures for doing inspections for cracking and corrosion of the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock pivot fittings of a CFM56 engine's T/R.

Goodrich Aerostructures has issued Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for doing inspections for cracking and corrosion of the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock pivot fittings of a CFM56 engine's T/R, and repair of corrosion.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 per inspection cycle $0 $340 per inspection cycle $136,000 per inspection cycle.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-11-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-18906; Docket No. FAA-2016-8182; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-069-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine exhaust.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock pivot fittings of a CFM56 engine's thrust reverser (T/R). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking and corrosion, which could lead to T/R malfunction and, in a case of rejected takeoff at V1 on a wet runway, a consequent runway excursion, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking and corrosion of each T/R pivot fitting specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016; as applicable; except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the T/R pivot fittings thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 months or 12,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

(1) The 3 o'clock position T/R pivot fittings having part numbers (P/N) that are provided in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of this AD.

(i) P/N 321-200-850-6.

(ii) P/N 321-200-851-6.

(iii) P/N 321-200-852-6.

(iv) P/N 321-200-853-6.

(2) The 9 o'clock position T/R pivot fittings having P/Ns that are provided in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD.

(i) P/N 321-200-800-6.

(ii) P/N 321-200-801-6.

(iii) P/N 321-200-802-6.

(iv) P/N 321-200-803-6.

(h) Compliance Times

At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, do the initial inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. If maintenance records cannot conclusively determine the T/R flight cycles accumulated since first installation, or the time since new, do the initial inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

(1) Before exceeding 10 years or 24,000 total flight cycles accumulated by the T/R, whichever occurs first since first installation on an airplane.

(2) Within 36 months or 7,200 flight cycles accumulated by the T/R, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

(1) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(2) If any corrosion is found during any inspection required by this AD and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016, specifies obtaining a damage disposition from Goodrich Aerostructures: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(3) Dispatch of an airplane equipped with a T/R pivot fitting(s) having a part number identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as specified in Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) 78-30-01 (deactivation of the affected T/Rs), is permitted provided the limitations specified in MMEL 78-30-01 have been followed.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation

As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a T/R pivot fitting having a part number specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, unless it is determined, prior to installation, that the T/R pivot fitting has accumulated less than 10 years and fewer than 24,000 total flight cycles since its first installation on an airplane, or less than 60 months and fewer than 12,000 flight cycles after having passed an inspection, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, dated May 7, 2014.

(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), or (k)(2)(iii) of this AD.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, dated May 7, 2014; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, dated April 29, 2014.

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, dated May 7, 2014; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 1, dated January 26, 2015.

(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, dated May 7, 2014; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 2, dated December 2, 2015.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

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

(m) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0076, dated April 18, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8182.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3), (n)(4), and (n)(5) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-70-1003, Revision 01, dated December 28, 2015.

(ii) Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin RA32078-137, Rev. 3, dated March 14, 2016.

(3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact 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.

(4) For Goodrich Aerostructures service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098; telephone 619-691-2719; email [email protected]; Internet https://techpubs.goodrich.com.

(5) 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.

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11129 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7262; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-079-AD; Amendment 39-18912; AD 2017-11-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-14, for certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. AD 98-13-14 required repetitive inspections of certain fastener holes of the aft fuselage, and corrective action if necessary. This new AD continues to require the actions in AD 98-13-14, with revised inspection compliance times. This AD was prompted by identification of cracks in the fastener holes of the former junction of the aft fuselage, which occurred during a fatigue test; and a determination that certain compliance times specified in AD 98-13-14 must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 11, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of July 30, 1998 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7262.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7262; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998) (“AD 98-13-14”). AD 98-13-14 applied to certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes (Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes). Since we issued AD 98-13-14, an evaluation by the DAH indicates that the former junction of the aft fuselage is subject to fatigue damage.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40210). The NPRM was prompted by the identification of four cracks in the fastener holes in the area of the former junction at frame (FR) 68 between stringers 4 and 5 (left- and right-hand sides), which occurred during a fatigue test, and a determination that certain compliance times specified in AD 98-13-14 must be reduced. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 98-13-14, with revised inspection compliance times. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracks from occurring or propagating in certain structures, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0084, dated May 13, 2015; corrected May 18, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”); to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

During a fatigue test campaign, four cracks were identified in the fastener holes of the former junction at frame (FR) 68 between stringers 4 and 5.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction générale de l'aviation civile] France issued * * * [an AD, which corresponds to FAA AD 98-13-14] to require repetitive inspections and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of an applicable repair solution.

That [DGAC] AD also provided modification of FR 68 [cold working of fastener and tooling holes] in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1090 as optional terminating action.

Following new analyses, the thresholds and inspection intervals have been reviewed and adjusted.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 96-298-093(B)R2 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/F-1996-298R2], which is superseded, and requires those actions within the new thresholds and intervals.

This [EASA] AD was republished to correct a typographical error in the Reason.

Repairs include doing applicable related investigative actions (i.e., rotating probe inspection of the hole to make sure the crack is removed and eddy current inspection of the cold expanded holes). You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7262.

Comments

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

Request To Update Service Information

Airbus requested that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016, be referred to in the final rule. This service information replaces a certain nondestructive test manual (NTM) task, removes an eddy current inspection for a certain service bulletin task, and updates the service bulletin airplane effectivity.

We agree with the request and have revised paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016. We have also added paragraph (k)(1)(iii) to this AD to provide credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015.

Additional Changes to the NPRM

We have revised paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD to remove references to the revision level and date of the service information that must be used for determining the compliance time, because operators might have used other versions for their most recent inspection. The number of affected U.S. registered airplanes has also been changed from 10 to 4. The total cost to operators has been changed accordingly.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed the following Airbus service information:

• Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a special detailed rototest inspection for fatigue cracking of the frame junction holes and the adjacent tooling hole, as applicable, of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, and repair, including doing applicable related investigative actions.

• Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 02, dated December 22, 1998. This service information describes procedures for modifying the airplane (cold working of fastener and tooling holes).

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Initial and repetitive inspections [retained from AD 98-13-14] 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 per inspection cycle $0 $680 per inspection cycle $2,720 per inspection cycle.

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

On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair 52 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,420 $3,800 $8,220
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998), and adding the following new AD: 2017-11-13 Airbus: Amendment 39-18912; Docket No. FAA-2016-7262; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-079-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998) (“AD 98-13-14”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers (S/Ns) 0001 through 0123 inclusive, except those that have embodied Airbus Modifications 21780 and 21781 in production.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by identification of four cracks in the fastener holes of the former junction at frame (FR) 68 between stringers 4 and 5, which occurred during a fatigue test, and a determination that certain compliance times specified in AD 98-13-14 must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracks from occurring or propagating in certain structures, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Repair, With Additional Methods of Approving Repairs

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 98-13-14, with additional methods of approving repairs. For Model A320 series airplanes, as listed in Airbus Service Bulletins A320-53-1089 and A320-53-1090, both dated November 22, 1995: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after July 30, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-13-14), whichever occurs later, perform a rotating probe inspection for fatigue cracking of the fastener holes and/or the adjacent tooling hole, as applicable, of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, dated November 22, 1995. Accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the actions required by this paragraph.

    (1) If no crack is detected, accomplish either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight cycles; or

    (ii) Prior to further flight following the accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, cold work the fastener holes and/or the adjacent tooling hole of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, dated November 22, 1995. Accomplishment of this cold working constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD.

    (2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with 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).

    (h) New Repetitive Inspection Requirement

    Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, whichever occurs latest: Accomplish a special detailed rototest inspection for fatigue cracking of the frame junction holes and the adjacent tooling hole, as applicable, of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until a repair required by paragraph (i) of this AD is done or a modification specified in paragraph (j) of this AD is done. Accomplishing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) Within 28,700 flight cycles or 57,400 flight hours since airplane first flight, whichever occurs first.

    (2) Within 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, since the most recent inspection done as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089.

    (3) Within 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, without exceeding 20,000 flight cycles since the most recent inspection done as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089.

    (i) New Repair Requirement

    If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair, including doing all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016. Do all applicable related investigative actions before further flight. Repair of an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (j) New Optional Modification

    Modification of an airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 02, dated December 22, 1998, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, provided the modification is accomplished before further flight after accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD and no cracks were detected.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) 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 the service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), or (k)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 01, dated June 4, 1998.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 02, dated February 3, 2003.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015.

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, dated November 22, 1995, which was incorporated by reference in AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998).

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 1, dated June 10, 1998, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0084, dated May 13, 2015; corrected May 18, 2015; for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7262.

    (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) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 11, 2017.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 02, dated December 22, 1998. Pages 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated June 10, 1998; and pages 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this document are identified as Revision 02, dated December 22, 1998.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 30, 1998, AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998).

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, dated November 22, 1995.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, dated November 22, 1995.

    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, 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.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11290 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0124; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-166-AD; Amendment 39-18911; AD 2017-11-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by several reports of nose wheel steering failures in service. This AD requires a part verification and replacement of certain steering manifolds. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0124.

    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-2017-0124; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2017 (82 FR 12071). The NPRM was prompted by several reports of nose wheel steering failures in service. The NPRM proposed to require a part verification and replacement of certain steering manifolds. We are issuing this AD to prevent moisture from entering the electrical stage of the electro-hydraulic servo valve (EHSV), which, in combination with a steering selector valve failure, could lead to uncommanded nose wheel steering, and a consequent runway excursion at high speed.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-24, dated August 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several cases of nose wheel steering failures have been reported in service. In one case, the aeroplane experienced uncommanded nose wheel steering, resulting in a runway excursion.

    Investigations found the presence of moisture inside the electrical stage of the electro-hydraulic servo valve (EHSV) unit, which resulted in low insulation resistance and corrosion. This condition, in combination with a steering selector valve failure, could result in uncommanded nose wheel steering, which could lead to a runway excursion at high speed.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the steering manifold to provide better moisture ingress protection of the EHSV.

    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-2017-0124.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015. This service information describes procedures for a one-time verification of the steering manifold part number and replacement of the steering manifold and mod plate. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 161 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Steering manifold part verification 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $13,685. Replacement of steering manifold Up to 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 Up to $18,522 Up to $18,862 Up to $3,036,7823.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-11-12 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18911; Docket No. FAA-2017-0124; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-166-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by several reports of nose wheel steering failures in service. We are issuing this AD to prevent moisture from entering the electrical stage of the electro-hydraulic servo valve (EHSV), which in combination with a steering selector valve failure, could lead to uncommanded nose wheel steering, and a consequent runway excursion at high speed.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Verification and Replacement of Steering Manifold

    Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time inspection to determine the part number of the steering manifold, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.

    (1) If the airplane has steering manifold part number (P/N) 40750-103, within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, write “SB100-32-018” on the nose landing gear (NLG) mod plate. If the mod plate is missing or full, within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, install a new plate, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.

    (2) If the airplane has steering manifold P/N 40750-101, within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, replace it in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015, and write “SB100-32-018” on the NLG mod plate. If the mod plate is missing or full, within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, install a new plate, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.

    (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 100-32-25, dated September 24, 2014.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a steering manifold, P/N 40750-101, on the NLG assembly of any airplane.

    (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 Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-24, dated August 19, 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-2017-0124.

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

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-25, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11289 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9226; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-065-AD; Amendment 39-18910; AD 2017-11-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; NavWorx, Inc. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast Universal Access Transceiver Units AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for NavWorx, Inc. (NavWorx), Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Universal Access Transceiver Units (unit). This AD requires removing, disabling, or modifying the ADS-B unit. This AD was prompted by a design change that results in the unit communicating unreliable position information. The actions in this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9226; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA11172SC, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kyle Cobble, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5172, email [email protected]; or Michael Heusser, Program Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Fort Worth ACO, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5038, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    On October 20, 2016, at 81 FR 72552, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to NavWorx ADS-B Model ADS600-B units, part number (P/N) 200-0012 and P/N 200-0013, and Model ADS600-EXP units, P/N 200-8013. The NPRM proposed to require removing the ADS-B unit before further flight and proposed to prohibit installing the affected ADS-B unit on any aircraft. The NPRM was prompted by a design change that resulted in the ADS-B units broadcasting a Source Integrity Level (SIL) of 3 instead of 0. A broadcast of SIL 0 is required because of the uncertified Global Positioning System (GPS) source included in the unit. The proposed actions were intended to prevent an ADS-B unit from communicating unreliable position information to Air Traffic Control (ATC) and nearby aircraft and a subsequent aircraft collision.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received approximately 200 comments, mostly from individuals but also from NavWorx and organizations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    A. Support for the NPRM

    Five individual commenters supported the NPRM.

    B. Comments Regarding the FAA's Justification of the Unsafe Condition

    Several commenters, including AOPA, requested that the FAA provide more information about the events that prompted this AD and the technical aspects surrounding the unsafe condition. We agree.

    Request: AOPA requested the FAA clarify whether the internal position source in the ADS-B units meets the performance requirements in Appendix B to Advisory Circular (AC) 20-165B. In support of this request, AOPA stated the FAA's contention that NavWorx did not present any data substantiating its SIL change is contrary to NavWorx's public statements that its testing verified the position source met the integrity levels required by the regulations. Similarly, NavWorx commented on the AD and maintained it has provided the FAA with data demonstrating the internal GPS met the requirements to transmit a SIL of 3.

    FAA Response: NavWorx has not demonstrated to the FAA that the internal position source meets the performance requirements in Appendix B to AC 20-165B 1 for a SIL of 3. The design specifications for NavWorx's P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 ADS-B units identify the internal GPS source for those units as an uncertified SiRF IV GPS. The SiRF IV is a commercial grade chipset not manufactured under an FAA Technical Standard Order (TSO). AC 20-165B requires the SIL be set at 0 when the ADS-B is integrated with an uncertified GPS source. When NavWorx submitted its software upgrade changing the SIL value from 0 to 3, no hardware design changes associated with the SIL value change were made to the ADS-B units and no testing data substantiating that SIL change was provided to the FAA. The only justification NavWorx cited for the software change was the FAA's termination of Traffic Information Service—Broadcast (TIS-B) services to aircraft broadcasting ADS-B with a SIL of 0. This data is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.

    1http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/.

    Request: AOPA requested the FAA clarify its meaning of “uncertified GPS source” since NavWorx has design approval through STC No. SA11172SC to install the ADS-B unit with the internal GPS on type-certificated aircraft, and since a compliant position source does not need to meet a specific TSO to meet the requirements set forth in Appendix B of AC 20-165B.

    Some commenters requested the FAA explain why it approved NavWorx's ADS-B units at all if the internal, uncertified GPS source is objectionable. Many commenters stated the NavWorx ADS-B units meet the performance and accuracy/integrity standards of TSO C-154c; others noted that NavWorx has stated its testing showed the units meet the requirements to broadcast a SIL of 3. Several commenters disagreed with the AD because the GPS source is not required to be certified separately from the ADS-B unit.

    FAA Response: The commenters, including NavWorx, are correct that the position source only needs to meet certain performance requirements and does not need to be certified under a TSO. However, despite NavWorx's statements and comments to the contrary, NavWorx has presented no data to the FAA—test plans and test results—that demonstrate the affected units with the internal SiRF IV GPS meet the performance standards to transmit a SIL of 3. Similarly, NavWorx has never demonstrated to the FAA that the affected units meet the 14 CFR § 91.227 requirements to broadcast a SIL of 3 when using the internal SiRF IV GPS.

    NavWorx's TSO-C154c authorization and STC were approved based on the P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 units broadcasting a SIL of 0 when using the internal uncertified GPS position source. NavWorx documented this as a limitation in the Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement (AFMS) for NavWorx's STC for ADS600-B installations. Section 2.6 of the AFMS, titled “Uncertified GPS Receiver (P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013),” states:

    The ADS600-B has an internal uncertified GPS WAAS receiver which does not meet the 14 CFR 91 FAA-2007-29305 rule for certified GPS position source. If the ADS600-B is configured to use the internal uncertified GPS as the position source the ADS-B messages transmitted by the unit reports: A Source Integrity Limit (SIL) of 0 indicating that the GPS position source does not meet the 14 CFR 91 FAA-2007-29305 rule.

    While 14 CFR § 91.227 requires a SIL of 3, TSO-C154c (the TSO under which the affected units are produced) does not. Thus, when the affected units broadcast a SIL of 0, they are TSO-compliant. Until the performance requirements of 14 CFR § 91.227 become effective on January 1, 2020, the FAA does not find the internal uncertified GPS source objectionable, as long as the ADS-B unit is correctly broadcasting a SIL of 0. It is NavWorx's change of the SIL setting in these units to 3, without any qualification of the internal uncertified GPS position source to support broadcast of SIL 3, that the FAA finds unacceptable. In this condition, the units are transmitting to ATC and to nearby aircraft that they have 14 CFR § 91.227-compliant position source integrity, when their position source integrity is actually not compliant with that rule, or is unknown. We discuss the safety effects of this condition in greater detail below.

    Request: AOPA requested the FAA further explain its finding that the affected units create an unsafe condition. Many commenters questioned the FAA's determination that the units present an unsafe condition, and asked whether any units have actually caused a collision or safety incident. Many other commenters stated they have been operating with the NavWorx unit and find it accurate and reliable. Several commenters stated the NavWorx units increase safety and noted that the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended ADS-B units to the flying public.

    FAA Response: The FAA's safety concern is primarily that of integrity, and not necessarily accuracy, with respect to the NavWorx ADS-B unit's performance requirements. Accuracy refers to the probability of the unit's true position in relation to its reported position.2 Integrity refers to the trust that can be placed in the correctness of the information provided by the unit and is specified by a SIL value. The SIL value is set based on design data from the GPS position source manufacturer and reflects the probability that the position source will provide incorrect data without providing an alert. This depends on whether the GPS has fault detection and exclusion, where the equipment will detect a faulty satellite and exclude it from the navigational calculations. If the GPS does not have fault detection and exclusion, the probability that the position source will provide incorrect data increases. Commercial position sources, such as the SiRF IV GPS used in the NavWorx P/N 200-0012, 200-0013, and 200-8013 units, do not have fault detection and exclusion capabilities. This is significant in the event a GPS satellite signal fails or a GPS “signal-in-space error” occurs.

    2 Accuracy of an aircraft's reported position is specified as Navigation Accuracy Category for Position, or NACP. A unit that complies with 14 CFR 91.227 has a NACP corresponding to an accuracy of better than 0.05 nautical miles. The NavWorx units' compliance with the 14 CFR 91.227 NACP (accuracy) performance requirements is not the concern that prompted this AD.

    The unsafe condition relates to the potential for the NavWorx unit to incorrectly report its own position to other aircraft and to ATC, by 0.2 nautical miles (NM) or more, without providing an alert.3 It may also result in ATC providing incorrect and inappropriate separation instructions or traffic advisories to other aircraft for avoidance of the ADS600-B-equipped aircraft, based on the erroneous position being reported by the ADS600-B. In this situation, the pilot of the ADS600-B-equipped aircraft would be unaware that his or her aircraft's ADS-B Out unit is broadcasting an erroneous position (possibly in excess of 0.2 NM), since the ADS600-B would not be providing an alert for this condition. Depending on operating conditions, these effects may occur in instrument meteorological conditions where see-and-avoid is not possible. In view of these factors, this condition poses an unacceptable hazard to other users of the National Airspace System (NAS).

    3 0.2 NM is the minimum integrity containment radius around the aircraft's reported position required by 14 CFR § 91.227 (c)(1)(iii).

    Although there have been no reported cases of a collision or safety incident resulting from an incorrect transmission by a NavWorx ADS-B unit to date, the potential for the unsafe condition exists as long as the units mislead ATC and nearby aircraft by broadcasting a SIL of 3 that they have not been shown to meet. This AD action addresses that potential unsafe condition.

    The fact that commenters have made flight tests with satisfactory ADS-B performance monitor reports from the FAA, or that commenters' individual units have been operating successfully, does not negate the existence of an unsafe condition. Flight tests with the ADS-B performance monitor are designed primarily to show that the ADS-B equipment in an individual aircraft performs correctly as installed. These tests are of relatively short duration and occur in fault-free conditions. They are not engineering tests designed to evaluate the unit's ability to handle GPS signal-in-space errors and cannot be used to draw inferences about the unit's position source integrity.

    Although the FAA recognizes the benefits of ADS-B equipage and understands that the NavWorx units may work a large percentage of the time for an individual user, the FAA must consider the effect on the entire NAS. Since failure is based on a statistical probability, the odds that a unit will have a failure increase as more units are introduced into the NAS and operate for a longer period of time. The probability of a failure also increases when there is a GPS satellite malfunction, which could affect many aircraft since the information is used by ATC and ADS-B In equipped aircraft for separation. Therefore, despite any benefit to individual owners when the unit works without failure, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition with the NavWorx units exists and requires corrective action because of the hazard they pose to other users of the NAS.

    Request: AOPA requested the FAA produce for public inspection the Small Airplane Risk Analysis (SARA) documentation.

    FAA Response: As part of our risk assessment, we initially performed a SARA. However, the SARA assumes failure on one airplane. The issue with the NavWorx ADS-B units poses risk to the NAS. Specifically, a malfunction at the satellite level could result in transmission of hazardously misleading position information from the ADS600-B-equipped aircraft to ATC and to other aircraft. It could also cause such malfunctions in all aircraft with the affected ADS-B units installed that are using the signal from the malfunctioning satellite to determine their position. Thus, we determined the SARA results provided questionable value, and that it was more appropriate to use the safety risk methodology from the ADS-B program, as documented in Safety Risk Management Document (SRMD) Critical Services: Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Only Addendum, SBS-036C, Revision 1, dated August 26, 2014 (SBS-036C).

    In SBS-036C, we analyze safety risk as a composite of two factors: The potential “severity” or worst possible consequence or outcome of an adverse effect that is assumed to occur, and the “likelihood” of occurrence for that specific adverse event. We assess both factors independently and then enter each as separate inputs into a risk matrix, which yields an overall level of risk for the event as Low (acceptable), Medium (acceptable with mitigation), or High (unacceptable). The corrective action, if any, is driven by the assessed overall risk. Figure ES-1 of SBS-036C contains the risk matrix the FAA used for this AD.

    The FAA considered an undetected position error event of 0.2 NM or more for a single aircraft as a “Position error outside containment bound for single aircraft undetected by airborne equipment/ground automation” hazard, which has a classified severity of “hazardous” per Table ES-1 and Appendix B of SBS-036C. Hazardous is defined in AC 23.1309-1E, System Safety Analysis and Assessment for Part 23 Airplanes, 4 as resulting in a large reduction in safety margins, physical distress or higher workload, or serious or fatal injury to an occupant other than the flight crew. A large position error (0.2 NM or more) may lead to loss of separation, increased ATC workload, a reduction in safety margins, and a near midair collision. These are unsafe conditions that warrant a “hazardous” severity level for risk assessment purposes.

    4http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/.

    From Table ES-1 of SBS-036C, the likelihood of this failure for a properly functioning system was assessed as extremely improbable. Figure ES-1 in SBS-036C is a risk matrix that yields an overall risk based on the severity classification and the assessed likelihood of occurrence. A severity classification of “hazardous” and an assessed likelihood of “extremely improbable” yields an overall risk of “Low,” which is an acceptable risk.

    However, the likelihood assessment of “extremely improbable” in Table ES-1 is based on the aircraft's GPS receiver having either fault detection or fault detection and exclusion, which is required in order to meet the ADS-B Out position integrity requirements of 14 CFR 91.227. A GPS receiver with fault detection detects a faulty satellite signal and provides an alert of the fault. If the GPS receiver has fault detection and exclusion, it additionally excludes the faulty satellite signal from the position computation. Because the GPS position source in the NavWorx ADS600-B units has no demonstrated fault detection or exclusion features, the FAA determined the appropriate likelihood should be based on the GPS constellation fault rate of 10 4 per hour (that is, a probability of 0.0001 occurrences per flight hour). As a result, the FAA elevated the risk of the hazard and assessed a likelihood of “remote.” 5 Using the severity classification of “hazardous” and an assessed likelihood of “remote” yields an overall risk of “High” in Figure ES-1. This is an unacceptable risk.

    5 Although the CARB assessed a likelihood of “remote,” Figure 2 of AC 23.1309-1E assesses a likelihood between “remote” and “probable,” depending on the class of aircraft, for a probability of 10−4. Either likelihood classification would yield a High overall risk on the Figure ES-1 risk matrix.

    These determinations are documented in the meeting minutes from the FAA's Corrective Action Review Board (CARB) held on September 19, 2016. In accordance with FAA Order 8110.107A, Monitor Safety/Analyze Data, the CARB considered this safety issue on that date and determined that an unsafe condition existed with the units. This documentation is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.

    Comment: A few commenters, including NavWorx, noted the FAA approved software revisions 4.0.7, 4.0.8, and 4.0.9, which included the software changes for the units to broadcast a SIL of 3.

    FAA Response: The commenters are correct that the FAA approved NavWorx's software changes identified as 4.0.7, 4.0.8, and 4.0.9. However, none of these changes identified on NavWorx's submittals affected the SIL value or referenced the SIL value change in 4.0.6. The FAA's approvals did not alter the FAA's previous written statements to NavWorx advising the equipment must report a SIL of 0 to remain compliant with TSO-C154c. This documentation is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.

    C. Requests To Allow Alternative Actions

    Request: Many commenters, including AOPA, requested that, since the internal GPS is the issue with the NavWorx unit, the AD allow the ADS-B units to use an external GPS position source or, similarly, that the AD not apply to units using an external GPS position source.

    FAA Response: We agree. The only external GPS position source approved by the FAA for interface with the ADS600-B is the Accord NexNav mini LRU GPS Receiver P/N 21000 (Accord external GPS).6 We revised the AD to allow interfacing the ADS-B unit with an Accord external GPS as an optional corrective action. For operators who wish to interface with other external position sources, under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data is submitted to substantiate that the unit would provide an acceptable level of safety.

    6 Some commenters stated or implied that other external GPS sources, such as the Garmin 530W, the Garmin GNS 430W, the Garmin GNS 480, and the Garmin GTN 650, are approved for installation in the ADS600-B. Contrary to any documentation these commenters may have from NavWorx, the only FAA-approved external GPS source is the Accord NexNav mini P/N 21000. Documentation of this is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.

    Request: Several commenters, including AEA, requested the AD allow disabling the unit rather than removing it.

    FAA Response: We agree. We revised the AD to allow disabling the unit as an optional corrective action.

    Request: Several commenters, including AOPA, requested the AD allow changing the SIL from 3 to 0 as an alternative to removing the unit.

    FAA Response: We agree. We did not include this option in the NPRM because NavWorx has stated it will not provide its customers with software to change the SIL to 0. However, we revised the AD to allow changing the SIL to 0 as an alternative to removing the unit in the event such software becomes available and is approved by the FAA.

    Request: One commenter requested that the AD not apply to units with software versions prior to 4.0.6, because these units broadcast a SIL of 0 and thus are not subject to the unsafe condition.

    FAA Response: We agree. We considered excluding units with software prior to version 4.0.6 when we issued the NPRM. We did not exclude them because our understanding of the units is that there is no recordkeeping, marking, or indication from the unit itself that allows an operator to identify the current software version. However, changes to the AD in response to other comments render this exclusion unnecessary.

    Request: AOPA requested that we allow the units to remain in service if NavWorx upgrades the internal position source with a position source that meets the requirements of Appendix B to AC 20-165B. Similarly, several commenters requested that we allow NavWorx to re-certify the unit.

    FAA Response: We agree. Should NavWorx upgrade its internal position source with a position source that meets the performance requirements of Appendix B to AC 20-165B, or demonstrate that the internal SiRF IV GPS meets those requirements, under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC.

    Request: Several commenters requested that we allow more time for compliance. Two of those commenters requested that we delay compliance until 2020, when the ADS-B operational rules become effective.

    FAA Response: We agree with extending the compliance time. We determined that safety will be maintained if the corrective actions are implemented within six months of the effective date of the AD, and we revised the AD accordingly.

    We disagree with delaying compliance until 2020. The FAA's ADS-B ground station network is already operational and in use by ATC nationwide, and ADS-B In is also widely used in general aviation aircraft for traffic awareness. Therefore, the fact that ADS-B Out will not be required equipment until 2020 does not negate the unsafe condition that exists from those units currently operating in the NAS.

    Request: Many commenters requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM and instead work with NavWorx to address the unsafe condition. Some commenters inferred a failure by the FAA in this regard because it appeared it took the FAA six months to respond to NavWorx's design change notification. A few commenters expressed disappointment and outrage at the FAA's handling of the certification process with NavWorx and requested we constructively and immediately resolve this situation.

    FAA Response: We agree it is desirable to work with manufacturers to resolve differences of opinion regarding product compliance and correct identified safety concerns. The FAA made numerous efforts, in a variety of forms and over a considerable period of time, to resolve this situation with NavWorx. Those efforts were unsuccessful.

    After receiving NavWorx's design change, the FAA advised NavWorx that it could not manufacture the units as TSO C-154c units because NavWorx had not provided acceptable data to substantiate modifying the SIL value of the internal SiRF IV GPS to 3. Initially, NavWorx agreed to return the SIL to 0 and requested 60 days to effect this change. Instead, over two months later, NavWorx informed the FAA that it would not be returning the SIL value to 0 after all. The FAA continued to advise NavWorx, both verbally and in writing, that the SIL change rendered the units non-compliant with the TSO. The FAA also continued to request that NavWorx voluntarily return the SIL to 0, but NavWorx refused. The FAA met with NavWorx and explained the means of compliance in our existing guidance for certifying the SiRF IV GPS to broadcast a SIL of 3, as well as the process for submitting an alternate or equivalent means of compliance for approval. While NavWorx indicated its desire to initiate one of those processes, it did not. Instead, NavWorx continued to sell and ship the part-numbered 200-0012 and 200-0013 units with the unapproved design change, and continued to furnish product software upgrades through its Web site to existing owners that contained the unapproved design change. When the FAA repeatedly requested to conduct a routine inspection of NavWorx's facility, in part to review NavWorx's units and data supporting its design change, NavWorx refused.

    After determining the situation created by NavWorx resulted in an unsafe condition, and without NavWorx's cooperation to correct the unsafe condition, the FAA found it necessary to issue an AD. Documentation of these events is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.

    Request: One commenter requested the FAA allow a temporary, alternative solution in which operators would periodically validate the units by flight test.

    FAA Response: We disagree. Validation flight tests are not engineering tests and are not designed to evaluate the unit's position source integrity. The commenter's requested method of compliance would not correct the unsafe condition.

    Request: One commenter requested we exclude ADS-B units that are already installed from the requirements of the AD.

    FAA Response: We disagree. The FAA has determined an unsafe condition exists on the affected ADS-B units and that removal or correction of the units is required.

    Request: Two commenters request the AD not apply to aircraft operating under visual flight rules (VFR).

    FAA Response: We disagree. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition with the NavWorx units exists and requires corrective action because of the hazard they pose to other users of the NAS. The NavWorx unit broadcasting a SIL of 3, when it is only authorized to broadcast a SIL of 0, has the potential to incorrectly report its own position to other aircraft and to ATC by 0.2 NM or more, without providing an alert. Even in visual meteorological conditions, this could result in the pilot of another aircraft visually searching the wrong sector of sky for the incorrectly reporting ADS600-B-equipped aircraft or incorrectly assessing the ADS600-B-equipped aircraft as not being a collision threat, based on the depicted relative position of the ADS600-B aircraft on its ADS-B In traffic display.

    Request: EAA and two individual commenters requested the AD not apply to experimental or light sport aircraft, since they are not regulated in the same manner as type-certificated aircraft. EAA states the FAA should address any valid airworthiness concerns with parts intended for experimental aircraft through a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) or safety alert for operators (SAFO). Two commenters requested the AD apply to experimental aircraft, because those aircraft operate in the same airspace as type-certificated aircraft and should use equipment with the same integrity. A few commenters, including AOPA, requested we clarify whether the AD applies to experimental aircraft.

    FAA Response: We agree to clarify this issue. We confirm that the AD applies to all aircraft, including experimental, and we revised the AD to clarify the applicability. We made this AD applicable to the ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 units because the design of the Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 is substantially identical to the Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013, specifically with regard to the internal GPS and the SIL setting. While some commenters are correct that the FAA has chosen to minimize regulations on experimental aircraft because of the level of the safety risk, these risks normally apply to the individual airplane and do not affect the overall NAS. The safety risks defined in this AD extend beyond one aircraft and could affect many other aircraft as well as ATC. Therefore, we find it necessary to include experimental aircraft in the AD's applicability.

    We do not agree that an SAIB or SAFO would be an appropriate solution. These documents contain information and recommended actions that are voluntary and not regulatory. Moreover, an SAIB is issued only for airworthiness concerns that do not rise to the level of an unsafe condition.

    The mission of the FAA is aviation safety. ADs are used by the FAA to correct known safety defects. It would be contrary to the intent of the FAA's mission and statutory authority to exclude certain aircraft when we have determined that a part installed on those aircraft has a safety problem.

    D. Comments Regarding Costs of Compliance With This AD

    Request: Many commenters stated that the cost to comply with this AD is underestimated or inaccurate and requested the FAA revise its cost estimate. These commenters stated the cost should include the cost to replace the unit with a new ADS-B unit and costs associated with loss of utility; should increase the number of labor hours to account for indirect costs such as removal and reinstallation of associated equipment, research, and paperwork; and should increase the labor rate.

    FAA Response: We disagree. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes only the costs associated with complying with the AD. In this AD, the only required action is the removal of the unit, the deactivation of the unit, the coupling of the unit with an approved external GPS source, or the upgrading of the software in the unit to broadcast a SIL of 0. These actions are estimated to take 1 work-hour each, except for coupling the unit with an approved external GPS source, which is estimated to take about 4 work-hours. The costs of associated required actions such as installing a placard or revising the flight manual are nominal. ADS-B Out equipment is not required for operation until January 1, 2020, and is only required for operation in certain specified airspace after that date. Individual operators are in the best position to determine whether they will need to install this equipment for the airspace they intend to operate in. Therefore, replacement of the unit is not necessary to comply with this AD.

    The labor rate of $85 per hour is provided by the FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans for the FAA to use when estimating the labor costs of complying with AD requirements.

    Request: Several commenters requested the FAA revise its determination that the AD is not a significant regulatory action. One commenter requested the FAA analyze the costs of the AD under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    FAA Response: We disagree. An AD is economically significant when the cost may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.7 Even if we were to include labor for indirect costs and the cost of replacing the unit with a new unit in our estimate, at an estimated cost of $10,000 per aircraft and $8 million for the U.S. fleet over the next three years, the AD would not rise to level of economically significant. In addition, ADs correct identified unsafe conditions, rather than raise an already adequate level of safety, and cannot be assessed in terms of benefits balancing costs, as would be the case for rulemaking that amends airworthiness standards.

    7 A “significant regulatory action” is defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The FAA did make such a determination for this AD. The basis for this determination is now discussed.

    The FAA uses the Small Business Association (SBA) criteria for determining whether an affected entity is small. For aircraft manufacturers, aviation operators, and any business using an aircraft, the SBA criterion is 1,500 or fewer employees.

    NavWorx is a small entity, and this AD could have an adverse impact on its business interests. Besides NavWorx, the largest number of affected small entities would most likely be operators of ADS600-B-equipped aircraft. Based on the estimated number of units in service, and assuming each unit is owned by a different small entity, the largest number of small entities affected is 800.

    The FAA estimates that there is a total population of 210,000 general aviation and air taxi aircraft in the United States.8 Of these, approximately 70,300 (33.5%) are flown primarily for some type of business or commercial use and thus are potentially operated by a small entity. Aircraft flown primarily for personal use would not be operated by a small entity as defined by the SBA.

    8 Based on the FAA General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity Survey for calendar year 2015 (the most recent year of data available), table 1.2, General Aviation and Air Taxi Number of Active Aircraft by Primary Use. http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/CY2015/media/2015_GA_Survey_Chapter_1_Tables_16SEP2016V2.xlsx.

    The FAA assumed all 70,300 commercial use aircraft are operated by small entities and that each small entity operates an average of 6 aircraft,9 which yields an estimated number of 11,700 small entities. We also assumed that of the 800 affected units, 33.5% (270) are used in commercial operations. 10 This equates to a maximum of 2.3% (270/11,700) of small entities affected by this rule. This is not a substantial number of small entities under the RFA.

    9 We based this assumption on the sanction guidance in Appendix B of FAA Order 2150.3B, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program, which classifies air carriers and operators by operating revenue, pilots employed, and aircraft operated for purposes of determining civil penalty amounts. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/.

    10 This assumption in particular is grossly high. First, some of the affected units are installed on experimental aircraft, which are prohibited from commercial operations and therefore could not be used by a small entity under the RFA. Second, of the approximately 200 comments we received on the NPRM, only six commenters (NavWorx, a charitable aircraft operator, and four avionics installation businesses) could be presumed to be commercial entities. The remaining comments were submitted by individuals.

    Request: A few commenters requested or implied the FAA fund the costs of the AD.

    FAA Response: We disagree. The FAA, as a federal agency, is responsible for all directives, policies, and mandates issued under its authority. Although we have determined that an unsafe condition exists with the design change to the ADS-B unit, the manufacturer is responsible for the design change. Additionally, the FAA's budget does not include allocations to cover AD costs incurred in modifying privately-owned equipment.

    E. Comments to the FAA's Rulemaking Process

    Request: Several commenters questioned the FAA's motive in proposing the AD. Some believed that the FAA is colluding with other ADS-B manufacturers or industry organizations. Others suggested the FAA is unfairly targeting NavWorx and would not be taking this action if it involved a larger manufacturer. We interpret these comments as requesting we withdraw the NPRM.

    FAA Response: We disagree. The FAA has not communicated with any other ADS-B product manufacturer or industry organization regarding the compliance or safety of NavWorx products. In issuing this AD, we followed established policy and procedures, including the public notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act, as well as the DOT's ex parte policy, which can be found in Appendix 1 to 14 CFR part 11. We placed all ex parte comments in the rulemaking docket and considered all comments we received.

    We also disagree that we are unfairly targeting NavWorx. We have determined an unsafe condition exists on a NavWorx product and we are requiring corrective action accordingly. If the FAA identifies similar problems and determines that an unsafe condition exists on other ADS-B products, whether manufactured by NavWorx or other companies, we would take appropriate action to correct the unsafe condition.

    Request: An individual commenter questioned whether we intended to issue an AD against ADS-B transponders manufactured by Trig or Dynon. According to the commenter, the Trig transponder allows the installer to manually set the SIL value, and the commenter claims installers will improperly set the SIL at 3 to obtain traffic information. The commenter also states the Dynon ADS-B uses the same GPS source that is the subject of this AD.

    FAA Response: We are issuing this AD to correct an unsafe condition that we have determined exists on a NavWorx product. This AD is not applicable to Trig Avionics (Trig) or Dynon Avionics (Dynon) ADS-B units. In the case of the older Trig units, installers are responsible for setting the SIL appropriately based on the qualification of the position source used. Additionally, neither the Trig units nor the Dynon units use the SiRF IV position source.

    Request: Several commenters noted they purchased a NavWorx unit because the FAA originally listed them as eligible for the ADS-B Rebate Program. We interpret these comments as requesting we withdraw the NPRM.

    FAA Response: We have considered the comment. When the FAA rebate program Web site activated, it listed the ADS600-B as an eligible unit without distinction by part number. This was consistent with NavWorx's Web site, www.navworx.com, which advertised the ADS600-B for sale without distinguishing between the four different unique transceiver part numbers comprising that model series. P/N 200-0112 and P/N 200-0113 are 2020 compliant, as these units contain a TSO-C145c approved Accord NexNav Mini internal GPS. P/N 200-0012 and P/N 200-0013, which are the subject of this AD, are not 2020 compliant because these units contain the uncertified SiRF IV GPS. Once the FAA rebate program office realized that the P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 units were not eligible for the rebate, it changed the Web site to identify the ADS600-B model by P/N and listed only the P/N 200-0112 and P/N 200-0113 units as ADS600-B equipment selection options. While the FAA regrets any inconvenience these actions caused, what occurred with the rebate program Web site is not relevant to whether this AD is necessary to resolve the unsafe condition presented by the NavWorx units that improperly transmit a SIL of 3. We did not change the AD based on these comments.

    Request: One commenter states the proposed AD is contrary to the FAA's Compliance Philosophy because we did not cooperate with NavWorx or provide NavWorx a reasonable time to work on a corrective action. The commenter requests we withdraw the NPRM, unless we can collect technical data confirming a safety issue, in which case the commenter requests any AD be issued in a non-punitive manner.

    FAA Response: We disagree. The FAA's Compliance Philosophy applies to enforcement actions taken for regulatory violations. It does not apply to ADs, which are rulemaking actions taken to correct unsafe conditions found in aeronautical products. Notwithstanding, we also disagree with contentions that we failed to cooperate with NavWorx or provide NavWorx with a reasonable amount of time to correct the unsafe condition. The FAA clearly and repeatedly explained to NavWorx the safety concerns with its ADS-B units and requested that NavWorx voluntarily make the units TSO-compliant. NavWorx's failure to do so created an unsafe condition, for which AD action is necessary.

    Comment: An individual commenter stated that owners of experimental aircraft could simply remark the affected part with a new part number so that the AD wouldn't apply. The commenter reasoned that since the builder of an experimental aircraft is also the manufacturer, he could alter the part to a new design and mark it with a new part number.

    FAA Response: If the FAA identifies similar problems and determines that an unsafe condition exists on other part-numbered ADS-B products, we would take appropriate action to correct that unsafe condition. Also, simply changing the part number of the unit, without performing any other corrective action, will not correct the unsafe condition that we have determined exists in the unit. Since the unsafe condition remains in the unit, operating an aircraft with such a unit (that has only had the part number modified with no other corrective action taken) would therefore be a violation of 14 CFR 91.7(a), which states that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. Any individual taking such action is subject to a civil penalty for a violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

    F. Comments on the Negative Impact of the FAA's Actions

    Request: Several commenters stated that the AD would create confusion or skepticism in the flying community, and will prevent aircraft owners from adopting new technologies promoted by the FAA in the future. Some commenters stated that because of the AD people will quit flying; many others stated aircraft owners will choose to operate without ADS-B equipment. These commenters requested or implied that we withdraw the NPRM.

    FAA Response: We disagree. Although the FAA sympathizes with owners who became early adopters of this technology in good faith and unfortunately are now adversely affected by a situation not of their making, the potential for this action to create skepticism and distrust of the FAA among aircraft owners does not negate the need to correct the identified unsafe condition. The FAA's failure to take action to correct this unsafe condition could lead to accidents, which would also reasonably result in skepticism and distrust of the FAA, not only on the part of the flying community but of the public at large. We did not change the AD based on these comments.

    Request: A few commenters stated the FAA created this problem by suddenly and unilaterally changing the operational ADS-B rules to deny TIS-B data to aircraft broadcasting a SIL of 0. Two of these commenters noted that NavWorx initially submitted data to substantiate a SIL of 3, but the FAA refused to grant NavWorx TSO authorization unless the units broadcast a SIL of 0. The commenters request the FAA provide TIS-B data to all aircraft, regardless of SIL.

    FAA Response: We disagree. The FAA's changes to only provide TIS-B services to aircraft broadcasting a SIL greater than 0 were neither sudden nor unilateral. The changes were announced on March 31, 2015, and became effective in early 2016.11 However, they were initiated several years prior, as the result of an FAA study to determine a low risk, cost-effective, technically beneficial strategy for modification of the FAA TIS-B service. During this study, we consulted with the current manufacturers of ADS-B systems (both certified and uncertified) designed to use TIS-B information, including Accord Technologies, Dynon, FreeFlight Systems, Garmin, Honeywell, NavWorx, Rockwell Collins, and Trig. Like other manufacturers, NavWorx had the opportunity to make and obtain approval for appropriate design changes to its equipment so its customers could receive TIS-B traffic after the service change. NavWorx chose instead to only change the SIL setting from 0 to 3 in software without demonstrating the existing GPS position source's qualification to broadcast of a SIL of 3. Since that time, the FAA has been requesting NavWorx submit testing data supporting its conclusion that the SiRF IV GPS meets the performance requirements to broadcast a SIL of 3. NavWorx has not provided the FAA with this data.

    11 A copy of the FAA's announcement of its decision to make changes to the TIS-B service is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.

    We also disagree with the contention that NavWorx initially submitted data to substantiate a SIL of 3. NavWorx's TSO-authorized design for its P/N 200-0012 and P/N 200-0013 ADS-B units has always identified the internal GPS source for those units as an uncertified SiRF IV GPS. The SiRF IV is not manufactured under an FAA TSO. The FAA approved this equipment and its installation to transmit a SIL of 0 because that is what is required by RTCA Document DO-282B (the performance standard for TSO-C154c and the NavWorx units) and AC 20-165B.

    The commenters' request to provide TIS-B data to all aircraft, regardless of SIL, would not correct the unsafe condition. We did not change the AD based on these comments.

    G. Comments Beyond the Scope of the NPRM

    Request: A few commenters expressed disagreements with the ADS-B mandate. One commenter stated compliance with the rule would put him out of business, because he did not fly often enough to justify the cost. Another commenter requested the mandate not apply to aircraft operating under VFR in certain airspace. The third commenter stated that because of the mandate, the FAA is unable to manage the increase in ADS-B technology development or deal with the market.

    FAA Response: Comments about the 2020 mandate are beyond the scope of this AD. The rules mandating ADS-B Out usage, 14 CFR 91.225 and 91.227, were promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking that began with an aviation rulemaking committee. An NPRM was issued in 2007 (72 FR 56947, October 5, 2007) and the comment period was subsequently re-opened for an additional 30 days in 2008 (73 FR 57270, October 2, 2008). The final rule published on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30160) and considered approximately 240 comments from air carriers, manufacturers, associations, and individuals. All documentation of this rulemaking is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2007-29305.

    Request: Some commenters requested or implied they should be given until 2025 to comply with the AD because compliance with the ADS-B mandate is not required for air carriers until 2025.

    FAA Response: Comments about the 2020 mandate are beyond the scope of this AD. It appears the commenters are referring to Exemption No. 12555, which is not a blanket 5-year extension for all air carriers. Exemption No. 12555 applies only to those operators who submit a request to use it and who comply with its conditions and limitations. Exemption No. 12555 allows the use of current ADS-B Out systems that are not fully compliant with the rule until fully compliant systems are installed on or before January 1, 2025. Documentation concerning Exemption No. 12555 is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2015-0971.

    Comment: One commenter described a safety of flight issue he encountered with a Garmin ADS-B transponder that he has previously reported to the FAA.

    FAA Response: The comment is not relevant to whether this AD is necessary to correct the unsafe condition presented by the NavWorx ADS-B units broadcasting a SIL of 0. We did not change the AD based on this comment.

    Comment: A few commenters expressed criticism of the FAA in general, without requesting specific changes to this AD.

    FAA Response: The comments are not relevant to whether this AD is necessary to correct the unsafe condition presented by the NavWorx ADS-B units broadcasting a SIL of 0. We did not change the AD based on these comments.

    FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the changes described previously. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (81 FR 72552, October 20, 2016) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed NavWorx AFMS for ADS600-B as installed under STC No. SA11172SC, approved May 4, 2014; NavWorx Installation Manual for ADS600-B Part 23 AML STC 240-0021-00-07, Revision 7, dated May 4, 2014; and NavWorx STC Master Drawing List 240-0013-00, Revision 10, dated May 29, 2014. This service information identifies the internal GPS position source for the NavWorx Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0012 and P/N 200-0013 as uncertified and not compliant with 14 CFR 91.225 and 91.227.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects approximately 800 ADS-B units installed on various aircraft of U.S. registry. Operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD based on an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Removing the ADS-B unit, disabling the ADS-B unit, or revising the software of the ADS-B unit will take about 1 work-hour, for a total of $85 per aircraft. Coupling the ADS-B unit with an approved external GPS will take about 4 work-hours for a total of $340 per aircraft.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-11-11 NavWorx, Inc.: Amendment 39-18910; Docket No. FAA-2016-9226; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-065-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following NavWorx, Inc., Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Universal Access Transceiver units (unit) installed on aircraft certificated in any category, including experimental:

    (1) Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012;

    (2) Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0013; and

    (3) Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an ADS-B unit incorrectly broadcasting a Source Integrity Level (SIL) of 3 instead of its authorized SIL of 0. This condition could result in the unit communicating unreliable position information to Air Traffic Control and nearby aircraft and a subsequent aircraft collision.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 11, 2017.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 6 months, comply with either paragraph (e)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this AD:

    (i) Remove the ADS-B unit.

    (ii) Disable and prohibit use of the ADS-B unit as follows:

    (A) Pull and secure the circuit breaker and disconnect the internal GPS antenna connector from the ADS-B unit and secure.

    (B) Install a placard in view of the pilot that states “USING THE ADS-B SYSTEM IS PROHIBITED.”

    (C) Revise the Limitations section of the Aircraft Flight Manual supplement (AFMS) by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add the following: “USING THE ADS-B SYSTEM IS PROHIBITED.”

    (iii) Revise the software so the ADS-B unit broadcasts a SIL of 0.

    (iv) Couple the ADS-B unit with an approved external GPS as follows:

    (A) Interface the ADS-B unit with an Accord NexNav mini LRU GPS Receiver P/N 21000.

    (B) Revise the Limitations section of the AFMS by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add the following: “OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE ACCORD NEXNAV MINI P/N 21000 EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQUIRED.”

    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an ADS-B unit Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0012, Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0013, or Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 on any aircraft unless you have complied with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(iii), or (e)(1)(iv) of this AD.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kyle Cobble, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5172, email [email protected]; or Michael Heusser, Program Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5038, email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    NavWorx Airplane Flight Manual Supplement for ADS600-B as installed under Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA11172SC, approved May 4, 2014; NavWorx Installation Manual for ADS600-B Part 23 AML STC 240-0021-00-07, Revision 7, dated May 4, 2014; and NavWorx STC Master Drawing List 240-0013-00, Revision 10, dated May 29, 2014, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact NavWorx Inc.; telephone (888) 628-9679; email: [email protected] or at www.navworx.com. You may review a copy of this information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3452, ATC Transponder System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 30, 2017. Lance T. Gant, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11625 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8179; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-201-AD; Amendment 39-18913; AD 2017-11-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-26-03, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. AD 2011-26-03 required installing Teflon sleeving under the clamps of certain wire bundles routed along the fuel tank boundary structure, and cap sealing certain penetrating fasteners of the main and center fuel tanks. This AD requires certain inspections for certain airplanes, corrective actions if necessary, and installation of Teflon sleeves under certain wire bundle clamps. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 11, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of January 20, 2011 (75 FR 78588, December 16, 2010).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8179.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8179; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6499; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-26-03, Amendment 39-16893 (76 FR 78138, December 16, 2011) (“AD 2011-26-03”). AD 2011-26-03 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47084). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to continue to require installing Teflon sleeving under the clamps of certain wire bundles routed along the fuel tank boundary structure, and cap sealing certain penetrating fasteners of the main and center fuel tanks. The NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability by adding The Boeing Company Model 777F series airplanes. The NPRM also proposed to add, for certain airplanes, detailed inspections of certain wire bundle clamps, certain Teflon sleeves, and certain fasteners; corrective actions if necessary; and installation of Teflon sleeves under certain wire bundle clamps. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing inside the main and center fuel tanks in the event of a fault current or lightning strike, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    Comments

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

    Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    Boeing requested that we withdraw the NPRM. The commenter stated that the actions proposed by the NPRM are no longer necessary, since the unsafe condition is adequately addressed by repetitive inspections required by the electrical wiring interconnection system (EWIS) enhanced zonal analysis procedure (EZAP) inspection program required by 14 CFR part 26. The commenter pointed out that, since the time this issue was determined to be a safety issue, the exposure assumed under the safety assessment has changed due to the inspection program. The commenter stated that the safety concern was that the failure of multiple protective design features for wiring installations could be a single cascading failure since the exposure was the life of the airplane. The commenter stated that since the implementation of the EWIS EZAP inspections, where the interval is now 6 years, this is no longer considered to be a single failure as the exposure has been reduced to where the wiring and installation is not expected to fail in this inspection interval and any potential wear would be detected and would be repaired or removed and replaced in accordance with maintenance activities.

    We disagree to withdraw the NPRM. The EWIS EZAP repetitive inspection program is implemented by FAA operating rules (14 CFR 121.1111 or 14 CFR 129.111), which are applicable only to operators that are required to comply with those operating rules. The FAA is obligated to advise foreign airworthiness authorities of unsafe conditions identified in products manufactured in the United States, including Boeing airplanes, in accordance with bilateral airworthiness agreements with countries around the world. The issuance of ADs is the means by which the FAA satisfies this obligation. Even if the FAA agreed that the actions required by 14 CFR 121.1111 and 14 CFR 129.111 adequately addressed the unsafe condition, the FAA would still issue this AD to address airplanes that may not be operated in accordance with those requirements. Additionally, the FAA does not agree that the EWIS EZAP repetitive inspection program has been demonstrated as sufficient to allow a determination that chafing through the wire insulation of the unmodified (pre-AD) configuration is not a foreseeable single failure. The FAA understands that the EWIS EZAP repetitive inspection program interval for this area was determined based on a later modified design, and that design has additional Teflon sleeving. For these reasons, we have made no change to this final rule in this regard.

    Request for Clarification of Safety Evaluation Criteria

    Boeing requested that we clarify the use of “unacceptable (failure) experience” in the Discussion section of the NPRM and that was used as a safety evaluation criterion under Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (SFAR 88). The commenter requested better definition of “unacceptable (failure) experience” or the addition of detailed guidance that defines how to identify an “unacceptable (failure) experience.” The commenter also indicated that Boeing airplanes at the time of design approval are intended to meet all applicable regulations including 14 CFR 25.601, which specifically prohibits hazardous or unreliable features.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. To provide standardized policy for determining the need for mandatory action relative to the finding from the fuel system safety review required by SFAR 88, the FAA issued Memorandum 2003-112-15, SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria, dated February 25, 2003. One of the criteria provided in the policy memo is that, for any tank (either high or low flammability exposure time), all failures identified in service, that result in thermal or electrical energy dissipation into the fuel tank system, which could create an ignition hazard, or that make fuel tank safety protection devices inoperative (e.g., fuel pump canister, wire sleeving, bonding lead), are considered unsafe conditions and must be addressed by corrective action (i.e., AD). This criterion is independent of any compliance showing or finding previously made as part of a type certification program. The policy memo criteria are mentioned in the Discussion section of each NPRM that resulted from an SFAR 88 unsafe condition determination. Additionally, the NPRM Discussion is not repeated in the final rule, so no change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.

    Request for Clarification of Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (l) of the proposed AD so that it is clear that credit will be given for past work that has already been accomplished on other Boeing Model 777 airplanes. No justification was provided, however, the commenter stated that the NPRM is adding the missing airplanes and it uses the latest service information to reset the method of compliance.

    We infer that the commenter is requesting clarification for taking credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(l) of this AD using earlier revisions of the service information. Paragraph (l)(1) of this AD provides credit for actions accomplished before January 20, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2010-24-12, Amendment 39-16531 (75 FR 78588, December 16, 2010) (“AD 2010-24-12”)), using service information revisions earlier than Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 2, dated May 14, 2009, required by paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-24-12. Accomplishing the actions using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 3, dated February 18, 2014, has been approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for paragraph (g)(l) of AD 2011-26-03, and AMOCs approved previously for AD 2011-26-03 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD as specified in paragraph (m)(4) of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015 is allowed for compliance with paragraph (g)(l) of this AD. Paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD require actions for airplanes not covered in paragraph (g)(l) of this AD and also require additional actions for those airplanes that accomplished the actions required by paragraph (g)(l) of this AD using service bulletin revisions earlier than Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015. Therefore, no credit is provided for actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD using service bulletin revisions earlier than Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Simplify Compliance Implementation Time Frame

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of the proposed AD to simplify the AD compliance implementation time frame. The commenter stated that the NPRM sets the requirements to be completed within 60 months of different revisions of different documents with an exception specified in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD, and that the proposed requirements were cumbersome and unclear. The commenter did not provide any explanation of how the paragraphs should be revised.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2011-26-03 and added new requirements in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. Paragraph (k) of this AD provides exceptions to the service information. For the new requirements in this AD, the FAA has determined that the compliance times are reasonable based on consideration of the risk level associated with the unsafe condition and the time necessary to perform the work. In addition, the compliance times in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD do not refer to any service documents (both paragraphs refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions in those paragraphs). Therefore, we have determined that the requirements of this AD are adequate and clear. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Clarification of Service Information Requirement

    Under the “Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information” section of the NPRM, we noted that the corrections to group applicability for “WORK PACKAGE 21: More Work: Rear Spar Wire Bundle Teflon Sleeve Installation,” Figure 3, and Figure 100 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, were included in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of the proposed AD. Paragraph (k)(1) of this AD specifies that WORK PACKAGE 21 applies to Groups 5 through 43 (including Configurations 1 and 2) to correct the error in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, which only identifies Configuration 2 of Groups 5 through 43 as applicable. Paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, which is referenced by paragraph (j) of this AD, is intended to clarify the airplanes affected by the requirements specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. To further clarify this aspect, we have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to specifically reference Groups 5 through 43, Configurations 1 and 2 airplanes.

    We have also revised paragraph (m)(4) of this AD to accept AMOCs approved previously for AD 2010-24-12 as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    Clarification of Unsafe Condition

    We have revised the Discussion section of this final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD to clarify that we are issuing this AD to address arcing inside the main and center fuel tanks in the event of a fault current or lightning strike, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing Teflon sleeving under the clamps of certain wire bundles routed along the fuel tank boundary structure, and cap sealing certain penetrating fasteners of the main and center fuel tanks. The service information also describes detailed inspections of certain wire bundle clamps, certain Teflon sleeves, and certain fasteners; corrective actions if necessary; and installation of Teflon sleeves under certain wire bundle clamps. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 182 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Install Teflon sleeving and cap sealing (retained actions from AD 2011-26-03) Up to 358 work-hours × $85 per hour = $30,430 $2,241 Up to $32,671 Up to $5,946,122. Detailed inspections and installation of Teflon sleeves (new actions) Up to 53 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,505 (1) Up to $4,505 Up to $819,910. 1 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide parts cost estimates for the installation of Teflon sleeves (new action) specified in this AD.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-26-03, Amendment 39-16893 (76 FR 78138, December 16, 2011), and adding the following new AD: 2017-11-14 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18913; Docket No. FAA-2016-8179; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-201-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-26-03, Amendment 39-16893 (76 FR 78138, December 16, 2011) (“AD 2011-26-03”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD.

    (1) For The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015.

    (2) For The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0051, dated May 15, 2006.

    (3) For The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0057, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2007.

    (4) For The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0059, dated October 30, 2008.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing inside the main and center fuel tanks in the event of a fault current or lightning strike, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Corrective Actions (Installing Teflon Sleeving, Cap Sealing, One-Time Inspection), With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2011-26-03, with revised service information. Within 60 months after January 20, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2010-24-12, Amendment 39-16531 (75 FR 78588, December 16, 2010) (“AD 2010-24-12”)), do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 2, dated May 14, 2009: Install Teflon sleeving under the clamps of certain wire bundles routed along the fuel tank boundary structure, and cap seal certain penetrating fasteners of the fuel tanks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 2, dated May 14, 2009; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.

    (2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0051, dated May 15, 2006: Cap seal certain penetrating fasteners of the fuel tanks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0051, dated May 15, 2006.

    (3) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0057, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2007: Do a general visual inspection to determine if certain fasteners are cap sealed, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0057, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2007. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (4) For Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0059, dated October 30, 2008: Cap seal the fasteners in the center fuel tanks that were not sealed during production, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0059, dated October 30, 2008.

    (h) Retained Cap Sealing the Fasteners, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2011-26-03, with no changes. For Model 777-200LR airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0059, dated October 30, 2008: Within 60 months after January 3, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-26-03), cap seal the fasteners in the center fuel tanks that were not sealed during production, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0059, dated October 30, 2008.

    (i) New Detailed Inspection and Corrective Actions

    For Group 1, Configurations 2 through 4 airplanes; Groups 2 through 4, Configurations 3 through 5 airplanes; Groups 5 through 43, Configuration 1 airplanes; and Groups 44 and 45 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For Group 1, Configurations 2 through 4 airplanes; Groups 2 through 4, Configurations 3 through 5 airplanes; Groups 5 through 43, Configuration 1 airplanes; and Groups 44 and 45 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015: Do a detailed inspection for installation of Teflon sleeves under certain wire bundle clamps, as applicable; a detailed inspection to determine the type of wire bundle clamp; and all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (2) For Group 1, Configurations 2 through 4 airplanes; and Groups 2 through 4, Configurations 3 through 5 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015: Do a detailed inspection for correct installation of certain Teflon sleeves, as applicable; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (3) For Group 1, Configurations 2 through 4 airplanes; and Groups 2 through 4, Configurations 3 through 5 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015: Do a detailed inspection for cap sealing of certain fasteners, as applicable; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (j) New Installation of Teflon Sleeves

    For Group 1, Configurations 2 through 5 airplanes; Groups 2 through 4, Configurations 3 through 6 airplanes; and Groups 5 through 43, Configurations 1 and 2 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install Teflon sleeves under certain wire bundle clamps, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, except as required by paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD.

    (k) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where “WORK PACKAGE 21: More Work: Rear Spar Wire Bundle Teflon sleeve Installation” of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, specifies “Groups 5 through 43, Configuration 2,” for this AD, “WORK PACKAGE 21: More Work: Rear Spar Wire Bundle Teflon sleeve Installation” of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, applies to all configurations of Groups 5 through 43 airplanes.

    (2) Where Figure 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, specifies “Groups 1 through 7, and 9 through 43,” for this AD, Figure 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, applies to Groups 1 through 43 airplanes.

    (3) Where Figure 100 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, specifies “Groups 5 through 43, Configuration 2,” for this AD, Figure 100 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015, applies to all configurations of Groups 5 through 43 airplanes.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before January 20, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2010-24-12), using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, dated January 26, 2006; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2007; provided that the applicable additional work specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 2, dated May 14, 2009, is done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. The additional work must be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 2, dated May 14, 2009.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before January 20, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2010-24-12), using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0057, dated August 7, 2006.

    (m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(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, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2011-26-03 and AD 2010-24-12 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6499; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(5) and (o)(6) of this AD.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 11, 2017.

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 4, dated September 28, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 20, 2011 (75 FR 78588, December 16, 2010).

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0051, dated May 15, 2006.

    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0057, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2007.

    (iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0059, dated October 30, 2008.

    (iv) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0050, Revision 2, dated May 14, 2009.

    (5) 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.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11291 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9285; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANE-2] Amendment of Class E Airspace, Bar Harbor, ME AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E airspace at Bar Harbor, ME, by removing the part-time status of the Class E surface airspace at Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport. The boundaries and operating requirements of these airspace areas remain the same. This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates and corrects the airport name in the airspace designation.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 amends Class E airspace at Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport, Bar Harbor, ME, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

    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 document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing the part-time status of the Class E surface airspace, and updating the geographic coordinates of Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport, Bar Harbor, ME, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, the airport's name was misspelled in the descriptor title. This action corrects that error.

    This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

    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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ANE ME E2 Bar Harbor, ME [Amended] Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport, ME (Lat. 44°26′59″ N., long. 68°21′42″ W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport, and within 2.7 miles each side of a 204° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6.2 miles southwest of the airport, and within 2.7 miles each side of a 024° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6.2 miles northeast of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 19, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11386 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9443; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-17] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kyle-Oakley Field Airport, Murray, KY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E airspace at Murray, KY, as the Calloway non-directional beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration at Kyle-Oakley Field Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport and updates the airspace designation header.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line 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: 1-(800)-647-8927, or (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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kyle-Oakley Field Airport, Murray, KY, for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM in the Federal Register (82 FR 4221, January 13, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2016-9443 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kyle-Oakley Field Airport, Murray, KY, due to the decommissioning of the Calloway NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. The NPRM also advised of the proposed amendment of the airport's geographic coordinates and the airport designation header to include the airport name. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Kyle-Oakley Field Airport, Murray, KY, due to the decommissioning of the Calloway NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Therefore, these changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are amended to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database, and the airport designation header, as noted in FAA Order 7400.11A, is updated to include the airport name.

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, 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. ASO KY E5 Kyle-Oakley Field, Murray, KY [Amended] Kyle-Oakley Field Airport, KY (Lat. 36°39′52″ N., long. 88°22′22″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7 mile radius of Kyle-Oakley Field Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 19, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11377 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0207] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Coos Bay, North Bend, OR AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated area during the inbound and outbound transit of the tall ships participating in the Festival of Sail to be held on the waters of Coos Bay. This action is necessary to safeguard participants and spectators from the hazards associated with the limited maneuverability of the tall ships and to ensure public safety during their transit. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the patrol commander or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from June 6, 2017 through June 5, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, May 31, 2017, through June 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0207 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Laura Springer, MSU Portland Waterways; 503-240-9319, 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

    On June 1, 2017, and again on June 5, 2017, several class A and B tall sailing ships will be transiting the waters of Coos Bay as part of the Festival of Sail Coos Bay. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators, support and transiting vessels, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation; Coos Bay, North Bend, OR. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action. During the comment period that ended May 15, 2017, we received no comments.

    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 this rule would be impractical as it would prevent the Coast Guard from ensuring the safety of participants, spectators, support and transiting vessels during the transit of the sailing ships and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River has determined that potential hazards exist with the limited maneuverability of tall sailing ships. Many other factors amplify the potential hazards of the situation, including: Large numbers of recreational and fishing vessels; a narrow channel; and, limited maneuverability of the tall ships. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of participants, spectators, support and transiting vessels during the inbound and outbound transits.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 13, 2017. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a temporary regulated area during the inbound and outbound transit of the tall sailing ships participating in the Festival of Sail to be held on the waters of Coos Bay. The regulated area will be all navigable waters of Coos Bay, from the sea buoy to the Ferndale Lower Range in North Bend, OR. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, support and transiting vessels, during the tall ships' inbound and outbound transits. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the patrol commander 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, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. Although this proposal would prevent traffic from transiting portions of Coos Bay, the effect of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the fact that the patrol commander may allow waterway users to enter or transit through the zone when deemed safe to do so. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 to notify mariners about the regulated area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    E.O.s 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, 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).

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area 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.

    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 Special Local Regulation for a regulated area lasting less than 3 hours during each transit period that will prohibit vessels from entering an area encompassing Coos Bay from the sea buoy to the Ferndale Lower Range unless given permission to do so by the on-scene patrol commander or his designated representative. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. A Record of Environmental Consideration and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.T13-0207 to read as follows:
    § 100.T13-0207 Special Local Regulations; Festival of Sail Coos Bay.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is designated as a regulated area: All navigable waters of Coos Bay, from the sea buoy to the Ferndale Lower Range.

    (b) Special Local Regulations. (1) The Coast Guard may patrol the regulated area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM.” Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.

    (2) Entrance into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the PATCOM. The PATCOM may control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled to stop by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    (3) All vessels permitted to transit the regulated area shall maintain a separation of at least 100 yards away from the participating tall sailing ships and a distance of at least 50 yards away while transiting in the vicinity of the McCullough Memorial Bridge and the Coos Bay railroad bridge.

    (c) Enforcement Period. This regulated area is in effect while the tall sailing ships are transiting Coos Bay, inbound on June 1, 2017 and outbound on June 5, 2017.

    Dated: May 31, 2017. B.C. McPherson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Coast Guard Thirteenth District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11634 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0300] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) between miles 846 and 847. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN during a rope pull event on June 10, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons and property from potential damage and safety hazards during a rope pull event across the UMR. During the period of enforcement, entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on June 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0300 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 about this rulemaking, call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code UMR Upper Mississippi River 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 is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by June 10, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    During the hours of 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on June 10, 2017, the sponsors of the “Pulling Together” event will be stretching a rope across the UMR from Minneapolis, MN to St. Paul, MN at river mile 846.5 for multiple tug-of-war competitions. After full review of the details for event, the Coast Guard determined action is needed to protect people and property from the safety hazards associated with the rope pull event across the UMR in Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of the rule is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the security measures necessary to respond to potential safety hazards associated with the planned rope pull event.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the rope pull event will be a safety concern before, during, and after the event. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels, people and property on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on June 10, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between miles 846 and 847 on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) in Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN. Exact times of the closures and any changes to the planned schedule will be communicated to mariners using Broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners. There are at least two planned intermissions to the event, during which an event boat will be tending the rope to allow for vessel traffic to pass through the area of the closure, thus limiting the impact to vessel traffic affected by the closure. The safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels on these navigable waters before, during and after the rope pull event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. These rules have not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, they have not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This temporary final rule establishes a safety zone impacting a one mile area on the UMR for a limited time period of five hours. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or other designated representative. Based on the location, limited safety zone area, and short duration of the enforcement period, this rule does not pose a significant regulatory impact. Additionally, notice of the safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will be made via Broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners. Entry into this safety zone may be requested from the COTP or other designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding these rules. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting five hours that will prohibit entry from mile 846 to 847 on the UMR on June 10, 2017. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration are 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. Add § 165.T08-0300 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0300 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River between miles 846 and 847, Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, a designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23 of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (d) Effective period. This section will be effective from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on June 10, 2017.

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

    Dated: May 31, 2017. M.L. Malloy, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11621 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0390] Safety Zone; PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom, Ohio River, Miles 25.2 to 25.6, Beaver, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the subject safety zone for the PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom Fireworks on the Ohio River. The zone is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom barge-based firework display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in Table 1 in 33 CFR 165.801, No. 45, will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., on June 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom Fireworks listed in the regulations in Table 1 in 33 CFR 165.801, No. 45, from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 24, 2017. The safety zone extends the entire width of the Ohio River from mile 25.2 to 25.6. The zone is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom barge-based firework display. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

    L. Mcclain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11620 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0011] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0011 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 Ohio Valley (COTP) is establishing, amending, and updating 33 CFR 165.801 to update our regulations for annual fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth Coast Guard District requiring safety zones with respect to those in Sector Ohio Valley. These events include air shows, fireworks displays, and other marine related events requiring a limited access area restricting vessel traffic for safety purposes.

    On March 30, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update” (82 FR 15666). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to those recurring safety zones. The public comment period ended on May 1, 2017. During the comment period, we did not receive any comments.

    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 03, 2017.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard's authority for establishing a safety zone is contained at 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Coast Guard is amending and updating the safety zones under 33 CFR part 165 to include the most up to date list of recurring safety zones for events held on or around navigable waters within the Sector Ohio Valley AOR. These events include fireworks displays, air shows, and others. The current list in 33 CFR 165.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing safety zones, include new safety zones expected to recur annually or biannually, and to remove safety zones that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new safety zone, amendment, or removal of an existing safety zone 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 safety zones.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on March 30, 2017. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule on the NPRM.

    This rule amends and updates part 165 or 33 CFR by revising the current table for Sector Ohio Valley, and by adding 5 new recurring safety zones and removing 1 safety zone as desired in the NPRM. Vessels intending to transit the designated waterway through the safety zone will only be allowed to transit the area when the COTP, or a designated representative, has deemed it safe to do so or at the completion of the event.

    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 safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR part 165 within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. The effect of this rulemaking will not be significant because these safety zones 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 safety zones in advance. Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners will also inform the community of these safety zones. Vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP 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.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.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. 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 is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction because it involves the establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) 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.

    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. In § 165.801, revise the first table to read as follows:
    § 165.801 Annual Fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth Coast Guard District recurring safety zones. Table 1 of § 165.801—Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Date Sponsor/name Sector Ohio Valley
  • location
  • Safety zone
    1. Multiple days—April through November Pittsburgh Pirates/Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.2-0.9 (Pennsylvania). 2. Multiple days—April through November Cincinnati Reds/Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 470.1-470.4; extending 500 ft. from the State of Ohio shoreline (Ohio). 3. 2 days—Third Friday and Saturday in April Thunder Over Louisville/Thunder Over Louisville Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 602.0-606.0 (Kentucky). 4. Last Sunday in May Friends of Ironton Ironton, OH Ohio River, Mile 326.7-327.7 (Ohio). 5. 1 day—A Saturday in July Paducah Parks and Recreation Department/Cross River Swim Paducah, KY Ohio River, Mile 934.0-936.0 (Kentucky). 6. 1 day—First or second weekend in June Bellaire All-American Days Bellaire, OH Ohio River, Mile 93.5-94.5 (Ohio). 7. 2 days—Second weekend of June Rice's Landing Riverfest Rices Landing, PA Monongahela River, Mile 68.0-68.8 (Pennsylvania). 8. 1 day—First Sunday in June West Virginia Symphony Orchestra/Symphony Sunday Charleston, WV Kanawha River, Mile 59.5-60.5 (West Virginia). 9. 1 day—Saturday before 4th of July Riverfest Inc./Saint Albans Riverfest St. Albans, WV Kanawha River, Mile 46.3-47.3 (West Virginia). 10. 1 day—4th July Greenup City Greenup, KY Ohio River, Mile 335.2-336.2 (Kentucky). 11. 1 day—4th July Middleport Community Association Middleport, OH Ohio River, Mile 251.5-252.5 (Ohio). 12. 1 day—4th July People for the Point Party in the Park South Point, OH Ohio River, Mile 317-318 (Ohio). 13. 1 day—Last weekend in June or first weekend in July Riverview Park Independence Festival Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 618.5-619.5 (Kentucky). 14. 1 day—Third or fourth week in July Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks Wheeling, WV Ohio River, Mile 90.0-90.5 (West Virginia). 15. 1 day—4th or 5th of July City of Cape Girardeau July 4th Fireworks Show on the River Cape Girardeau, MO Upper Mississippi River, Mile 50.0-52.0. 16. 1 day—Third or fourth of July Harrah's Casino/Metropolis Fireworks Metropolis, IL Ohio River, Mile 942.0-945.0 (Illinois). 17. 1 day—During the first week of July Louisville Bats Baseball Club/Louisville Bats Firework Show Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 603.0-604.0 (Kentucky). 18. 1 day—July 4th Waterfront Independence Festival/Louisville Orchestra Waterfront 4th Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 603.0-604.0 (Kentucky). 19. 1 day—During the first week of July Celebration of the American Spirit Fireworks/All American 4th of July Owensboro, KY Ohio River, Mile 755.0-759.0 (Kentucky). 20. 1 day—During the first week of July Riverfront Independence Festival Fireworks New Albany, IN Ohio River, Mile 602.0-603.5 (Indiana). 21. 1 day—July 4th Shoals Radio Group/Spirit of Freedom Fireworks Florence, AL Tennessee River, Mile 255.0-257.0 (Alabama). 22. 1 day—Saturday before July 4th Town of Cumberland City/Lighting up the Cumberlands Fireworks Cumberland City, TN Cumberland River, Mile 103.0-105.0 (Tennessee). 23. 1 day—July 4th Knoxville office of Special Events/Knoxville July 4th Fireworks Knoxville, TN Tennessee River, Mile 647.0-648.0 (Tennessee). 24. 1 day—July 4th NCVC/Music City July 4th Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-192.0 (Tennessee). 25. 1 day—Saturday before July 4th, or Saturday after July 4th Grand Harbor Marina/Grand Harbor Marina July 4th Celebration Counce, TN Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Mile 450.0-450.5 (Tennessee). 26. 1 day—Second Saturday in July City of Bellevue, KY/Bellevue Beach Park Concert Fireworks Bellevue, KY Ohio River, Mile 468.2-469.2 (Kentucky and Ohio). 27. 1 day—Sunday before Labor Day Cincinnati Bell, WEBN, and Proctor and Gamble/Riverfest Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 469.2-470.5 (Kentucky and Ohio) and Licking River Mile 0.0-3.0 (Kentucky). 28. 1 day—July 4th Summer Motions Inc./Summer Motion Ashland, KY Ohio River, Mile 322.1-323.1 (Kentucky). 29. 1 day—Last weekend in June or First weekend in July City of Point Pleasant/Point Pleasant Sternwheel Fireworks Point Pleasant, WV Ohio River, Mile 265.2-266.2, Kanawha River Mile 0.0-0.5 (West Virginia). 30. 1 day—July 3rd or 4th City of Charleston/City of Charleston Independence Day Celebration Charleston, WV Kanawha River, Mile 58.1-59.1 (West Virginia). 31. 1 day—July 4th Civic Forum/Civic Forum 4th of July Celebration Portsmouth, OH Ohio River, Mile 355.5-356.5 (Ohio). 32. 1 day—Second Saturday in August Guyasuta Days Festival/Borough of Sharpsburg Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 005.5-006.0 (Pennsylvania). 33. 1 day—Second or third week of August Pittsburgh Foundation/Bob O'Connor Cookie Cruise Pittsburgh, PA Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.5 (Pennsylvania). 34. 1 day—Second full week of August PA FOB Fireworks Display Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.8-1.0 (Pennsylvania). 35. 1 day—Third week of August Beaver River Regatta Fireworks Beaver, PA Ohio River, Mile 25.2-25.8 (Pennsylvania). 36. 1 day—December 31 Pittsburgh Cultural Trust/Highmark First Night Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River Mile, 0.5-1.0 (Pennsylvania). 37. 1 day—Friday before Thanksgiving Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership/Light Up Night Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-1.0 (Pennsylvania). 38. Multiple days—April through November Pittsburgh Riverhounds/Riverhounds Fireworks Pittsburgh, PA Monongahela River, Mile 0.22-0.77 (Pennsylvania). 39. 3 days—Second or third weekend in June Hadi Shrine/Evansville Freedom Festival Air Show Evansville, IN Ohio River, Miles 791.0-795.0 (Indiana). 40. 1 day—Second or third Saturday in June, the last day of the Riverbend Festival Friends of the Festival, Inc./Riverbend Festival Fireworks Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.5-464.5 (Tennessee). 41. 2 days—Second Friday and Saturday in June City of Newport, KY/Italianfest Newport, KY Ohio River, Miles 469.6-470.0 (Kentucky and Ohio). 42. 1 day—Last Saturday in June City of Aurora/Aurora Firecracker Festival Aurora, IN Ohio River Mile, 496.7; 1400 ft. radius from the Consolidated Grain Dock located along the State of Indiana shoreline at (Indiana and Kentucky). 43. 1 day—Second weekend in June City of St. Albans/St. Albans Town Fair St. Albans, WV Kanawha River, Mile 46.3-47.3 (West Virginia). 44. 1 day—Last week of June or first week of July PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom Beaver, PA Ohio River, Mile 25.2-25.6 (Pennsylvania). 45. 1 day—4th of July (Rain date—July 5th) Monongahela Area Chamber of Commerce/Monongahela 4th of July Celebration Monongahela, PA Monongahela River, Mile 032.0-033.0 (Pennsylvania). 46. 1 day—Saturday Third or Fourth full week of July (Rain date—following Sunday) Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks Oakmont, PA Allegheny River, Mile 12.0-12.5 (Pennsylvania). 47. 1 day—Week of July 4th Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration Pittsburgh, PA Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.5, Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-0.5 (Pennsylvania). 48. 1 day—3rd or 4th of July City of Paducah, KY Paducah, KY Ohio River, Mile 934.0-936.0; Tennessee River, mile 0.0-1.0 (Kentucky). 49. 1 day—3rd or 4th of July City of Hickman, KY Hickman, KY Lower Mississippi River, Mile 921.0-923.0 (Kentucky). 50. 1 day—During the first week of July Evansville Freedom Celebration/4th of July Fireworks Evansville, IN Ohio River, Miles 791.0-795.0 (Indiana). 51. 1 day—One of the first two weekends in July Madison Regatta, Inc./Madison Regatta Madison, IN Ohio River, Miles 555.0-560.0 (Indiana). 52. 1 day—July 4th Cities of Cincinnati, OH and Newport, KY/July 4th Fireworks Newport, KY Ohio River, Miles 469.6-470.2 (Kentucky and Ohio). 53. 2 days—Second weekend in July Marietta Riverfront Roar/Marietta Riverfront Roar Marietta, OH Ohio River, Mile 171.6-172.6 (Ohio). 54. 1 day—1st weekend in July Gallia County Chamber of Commerce/Gallipolis River Recreation Festival Gallipolis, OH Ohio River, Mile 269.5-270.5 (Ohio). 55. 1 day—July 4th Kindred Communications/Dawg Dazzle Huntington, WV Ohio River, Mile 307.8-308.8 (West Virginia). 56. Multiple days—September through January University of Pittsburgh Athletic Department/University of Pittsburgh Fireworks Pittsburgh, PA Ohio River mile 0.0-0.1, Monongahela River mile 0.0-0.1, Allegheny River mile 0.0-0.25 (Pennsylvania). 57. Sunday, Monday, or Thursday from August through February Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River mile 0.0-0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0-0.1, Monongahela River mile 0.0-0.1. 58. 3 days—Third week in September Wheeling Heritage Port Sternwheel Festival Foundation/Wheeling Heritage Port Sternwheel Festival Wheeling, WV Ohio River, Mile 90.2-90.7 (West Virginia). 59. 1 day—Second Saturday in September Ohio River Sternwheel Festival Committee fireworks Marietta, OH Ohio River, Mile 171.5-172.5 (Ohio). 60. 1 day—Second weekend of October Leukemia and Lymphoma Society/Light the Night Walk Fireworks Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-192.0 (Tennessee). 61. 1 day—Saturday during the first week of October West Virginia Motor Car Festival Charleston, WV Kanawha River, Mile 58-59 (West Virginia). 62. 1 day—Friday before Thanksgiving Kittanning Light Up Night Firework Display Kittanning, PA Allegheny River, Mile 44.5-45.5 (Pennsylvania). 63. 1 day—First week in October Leukemia & Lymphoma Society/Light the Night Pittsburgh, PA Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.4 (Pennsylvania). 64. 1 day—Friday before Thanksgiving Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular Pittsburgh, PA Monongahela River, Mile 0.00-0.22, Allegheny River, Mile 0.00-0.25, and Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.3 (Pennsylvania). 65. 1 day—During the first two weeks of July City of Maysville Fireworks Maysville, KY Ohio River, Mile
  • 408-409 (Kentucky).
  • 66. 1 day—Saturday before Memorial Day Venture Outdoors/Venture Outdoors Festival Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.25; Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-0.25 (Pennsylvania). 67. 1 day—Third Saturday in July Pittsburgh Irish Rowing Club/St. Brendan's Cup Currach Regatta Pittsburgh, PA Ohio River, Mile 7.0-9.0 (Pennsylvania). 68. 1 day—July 4th Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Freedom Celebration Wellsburg, WV Ohio River, Mile 73.5-74.5 (West Virginia). 69. 1 day—During the first week of July Newburgh Fireworks Display Newburgh, IN Ohio River, Mile 777.3-778.3 (Indiana). 70. 3 days—Third or Fourth weekend in April Henderson Tri-Fest/Henderson Breakfast Lions Club Henderson, KY Ohio River, Mile 803.5-804.5 (Kentucky).
    Dated: May 25, 2017. M.B. Zamperini, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11619 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0648; A-1-FRL-9962-83-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source Orders; Correction AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register on May 1, 2017, approving reasonably available control technology (RACT) orders for two facilities in Connecticut, and also approving the state's request to withdraw seven previously approved RACT orders from the Connecticut state implementation plan. An error in the amendatory instruction is identified and corrected in this action.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    EPA published a direct final rule on May 1, 2017 (82 FR 20262) approving two Connecticut state orders, and also approving the state's request to withdraw seven previously approved orders from the Connecticut state implementation plan. In this approval, EPA incorrectly identified in the amendatory instructions a paragraph to be added to 40 CFR 52.370 as paragraph (c)(55)(i)(B). This paragraph should have been identified as (c)(55)(i)(C). Therefore, the amendatory instruction is being corrected to reflect the correct CFR reference.

    Correction

    In the direct final rule published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2017, (82 FR 20262), make the following correction:

    § 52.370 [Corrected]
    1. On page 20266, first column, in amendatory instruction 2 for § 52.370, in the fourth line, the entry for paragraph “(c)(55)(i)(B)” is corrected to read “(c)(55)(i)(C).” Dated: May 16, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11571 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0202; FRL-9962-41-Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans (Negative Declarations) for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Revisions to State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: New Hampshire AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving: Negative declarations for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators for the State of Connecticut, the State of New Hampshire, the State of Rhode Island, and the State of Vermont; negative declarations for hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators for the State of Rhode Island; and revisions to the state plan for existing large and small municipal waste combustors for the State of New Hampshire. This action is being made in accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective August 7, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 6, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0202 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Bird, Air Permits, Toxics, & Indoor Programs Unit, Air Programs Branch, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Mail Code: OEP05-2, Boston, MA, 02109-0287. Telephone: 617-918-1287. Fax: 617-918-0287. Email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    I. Background II. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators A. Connecticut B. New Hampshire C. Rhode Island D. Vermont III. Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators A. Rhode Island IV. Large and Small Municipal Waste Combustors A. New Hampshire V. Final Actions VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance standards and emission guidelines for various types of new and existing solid waste incineration units. These rulemakings establish emission standards for certain air pollutants, including organics (dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury), hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (which includes opacity).

    Section 129(b)(2) requires states to submit to EPA for approval section 111(d)/129 plans that implement and enforce the promulgated emission guidelines. Section 129(b)(3) requires EPA to promulgate a federal plan within two years from the date on which the emission guidelines, or revision to the emission guidelines, is promulgated. The federal plan is applicable to affected facilities when the state has failed to receive EPA approval of the section 111(d)/129 plan. The federal plan remains in effect until the state submits and receives EPA approval of its section 111(d)/129 state plan.

    State plans submitted pursuant to CAA sections 111(d) and 129 must be consistent with the relevant emission guidelines. If a state has no existing sources for the relevant emission guideline, a state may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a state plan for that particular type of existing source solid waste incineration unit.

    II. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators

    Performance standards for new stationary source commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI) and emission guidelines for existing source CISWI were originally promulgated on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75338). These rulemakings underwent a number of revisions and amendments throughout the 2000s, with the most recent amendments being finalized on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40956). Due to significant changes to applicability in the March 21, 2011 CISWI rulemaking, EPA required states to resubmit state plans for existing source CISWI. See 76 FR 15704 and 78 FR 9112. Existing source CISWI units are those which have commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010 or modified no later than August 7, 2013. The emission guidelines for existing source CISWI is codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

    A. Connecticut

    Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a negative declaration on September 1, 2015 certifying no existing source CISWI units operate within the State of Connecticut. CT DEEP noted the energy recovery incinerator located at Pfizer, Inc. in Groton, Connecticut ceased operation in 2008. The unit's permits were revoked, and the incinerator was rendered inoperable.

    B. New Hampshire

    The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) submitted a negative declaration on September 25, 2013 certifying no existing source CISWI units operate within the State of New Hampshire. NH DES noted that an existing source CISWI unit located at D.D. Bean & Sons Co. in Jaffrey, New Hampshire ceased operating in January 2005. The unit was completely dismantled in August 2005. NH DES has requested its state plan for existing source CISWI, approved by EPA on February 10, 2003 (68 FR 6635), be withdrawn and the negative declaration be approved in its stead.

    C. Rhode Island

    The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) submitted a negative declaration on August 19, 2015 certifying no existing source CISWI units operate within the State of Rhode Island. This certification serves to update a previous negative declaration for existing source CISWI approved by EPA on April 12, 2002 (67 FR 17946).

    D. Vermont

    The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) submitted a negative declaration on July 26, 2013 certifying no existing source CISWI units operate within the State of Vermont. This certification serves to update a previous negative declaration for existing source CISWI approved by EPA on December 11, 2001 (66 FR 63940).

    III. Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

    Performance standards for new stationary source hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI) and emission guidelines for existing source HMIWI were originally promulgated on September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48348). The rulemakings underwent a number of revisions and amendments throughout the 2000s, with the most recent amendments being finalized on April 4, 2011(76 FR 18407). Existing source HMIWI units are those which have commenced construction on or before December 1, 2008 or modified no later than April 6, 2010. The emission guidelines for existing source HMIWI are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce.

    A. Rhode Island

    RI DEM submitted a negative declaration on February 8, 2011 certifying no existing source HMIWI units operate within the State of Rhode Island. All HMIWI units within the state have permanently ceased operation. On August 19, 2015, RI DEM requested its state plan for existing source HMIWI, approved by EPA on April 27, 2001 (66 FR 21092), be withdrawn and the negative declaration be approved in its stead.

    IV. Large and Small Municipal Waste Combustors

    Performance standards for new stationary source large municipal waste combustors (MWC) and emission guidelines for existing large MWCs were originally promulgated on February 11, 1991 (54 FR 52251). Large MWC rulemakings underwent a number of revisions and amendments throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, with the most recent amendments being finalized on May 10, 2006 (71 FR 18407). Performance standards for new stationary source small MWCs and emission guidelines for existing small MWCs were originally promulgated on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76350 and 65 FR 76378). Existing large MWC units are those which have commenced construction on or before September 20, 1994 or modified no later than June 19, 1996. The emission guidelines for existing source large MWCs are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. Existing source small MWC units are those which have commenced construction on or before August 30, 1999 or modified no later than June 21, 2001. The emission guidelines for existing small MWCs are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA.

    A. New Hampshire

    EPA approved the New Hampshire large and small MWC state plan on February 10, 2003 (68 FR 6630). The implementing and enforceable regulation for the New Hampshire large and small MWC state plan is CHAPTER Env-A 3300 MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION. On January 29, 2009, NH DES submitted revisions to its large and small MWC state plan, specifically revisions to Env-A 3300, in order to make New Hampshire's state plan consistent with EPA's 2006 amendments to the large MWC emission guidelines. A technical amendment to the January 2009 submittal was submitted on February 13, 2009. EPA approved New Hampshire's state plan revisions on September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52204).

    In early 2016, the New Hampshire General Court revised 125-C:10-a, a state statute that establishes emission limits for large and small MWC units. The revised legislation increased the stringency of emission limits for existing small MWCs for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, and dioxin/furans. The revised emission limits for existing small MWCs are now identical to those of existing large MWCs for those particular pollutants. Revision to 125-C:10-a became effective on July 18, 2016.

    In anticipation of the legislative action, NH DES revised Env-A 3300. Revisions to Env-A 3300 incorporated by reference 125-C:10-a and added a table to Env-A 3300 at Appendix D summarizing the most stringent emission limits applicable to existing small MWCs in New Hampshire. Other inconsequential formatting changes were made to Env-A 3300. Overall, the revised emission limits for existing source small MWCs make the New Hampshire regulation more stringent than federal standards for existing small MWCs.

    NH DES submitted the amended Env-A 3300 as a state plan revision on July 28, 2016. NH DES provided adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed rulemaking Env-A 3300.

    V. Final Actions

    EPA is approving CISWI negative declarations for the State of Connecticut, the State of Rhode Island, and the State of Vermont. EPA is approving the withdrawal of the New Hampshire CISWI state plan and approving the state's negative declaration. EPA is approving the withdrawal of the Rhode Island HMIWI state plan and approving the state's negative declaration. These negative declarations satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 62.06 and will serve in lieu of CAA section 111(d)/129 state plans for the specified states and source categories.

    EPA is approving revisions to the New Hampshire state plan for large and small MWCs. EPA's approval of the New Hampshire's state plan is based on our findings that:

    • NH DES provided adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed rulemaking that allows New Hampshire to carry out and enforce provisions that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines for large and small MWCs, and;

    • NH DES demonstrated legal authority to adopt emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to the designated facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information necessary to determine compliance; require record keeping; conduct inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly available.

    EPA is publishing these actions without prior proposal because the Agency views these as noncontroversial amendments and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the negative declarations, State Plan withdrawal, and technical corrections should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 7, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by July 6, 2017.

    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on August 7, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 7, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 20, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England. Part 62 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 62—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart H—Connecticut 2. Add § 62.1750 and an undesignated center heading to subpart H to read as follows: Air Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
    § 62.1750 Identification of plan—negative declaration.

    On September 1, 2015, the State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection submitted a letter certifying no Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration units subject to 40 CFR 60, subpart DDDD operate within the state's jurisdiction.

    Subpart EE—New Hampshire 3. Amend § 62.7325 by: a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(3); b. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(ii); and c. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(3).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 62.7325 Identification of plan.

    (b) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ii) Revised State Plan for Large and Small Municipal Waste Combustors was submitted on July 28, 2016. Revisions included amendments to New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Env-A 3300 Municipal Waste Combustion in response to more stringent emission limits for Small MWCs enacted by the New Hampshire General Court in 2016 and codified at New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 125-C:10-a.

    4. Revise § 62.7455 to read as follows:
    § 62.7455 Identification of plan—negative declaration.

    On September 25, 2013 the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services submitted a letter certifying no Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD operate within the state's jurisdiction.

    Subpart OO—Rhode Island 5. Add an undesignated center heading preceding § 62.9825 to read as follows: Plan for the Control of Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities (Section 111(d) Plan)
    § 62.9825 [Amended]
    6. Section 62.9825 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1). 7. Revise § 62.9990 to read as follows:
    § 62.9990 Identification of plan—negative declaration.

    On September 25, 2013 the State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management submitted a letter certifying no Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce operate within the state's jurisdiction.

    Subpart UU—Vermont 8. Revise § 62.11480 to read as follows:
    § 62.11480 Identification of plan—negative declaration.

    On July 26, 2013, the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation submitted a letter certifying no Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD operate within the state's jurisdiction.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10916 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 107 Tuesday, June 6, 2017 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2017-0008] RIN 3150-AJ89 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International MAGNASTOR® Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the NAC International (NAC), MAGNASTOR® Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1031. Amendment No. 7 provides a new Passive MAGNASTOR® Transfer Cask and associated Technical Specification (TS) changes in Appendices A and B, and updates Section 4.3.1(i) in Appendix A of the TSs to include revised seismic requirements. Clarifying (non-technical) changes were also made to Appendices A and B.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by July 6, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0008. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keith McDaniel, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5252; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0008 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0008.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0008 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Rulemaking Procedure

    This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1031 and does not include other aspects of the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System design. Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on August 21, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this proposed rule by July 6, 2017, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to these proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.

    A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

    (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

    (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

    (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

    (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

    (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

    (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.

    For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    III. Background

    Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

    To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), that approved the NAC MAGNASTOR® Cask System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1031.

    IV. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

    V. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

    Document ADAMS accession number Request to Amend U.S. NRC Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 for NAC International MAGNASTOR Cask System, Letter Dated August 7, 2015 ML15225A468. NAC International, Submittal of Responses to NRC's Request for Additional Information to Amend the U.S. NRC CoC No. 1031 Related to the MAGNASTOR® Cask System, Amendment No. 7 Request, Letter Dated April 15, 2016 ML16112A029 (Package). Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information No. 2 Related to the MAGNASTOR® Cask System, Amendment No. 7 Request, CoC No. 1031, Letter Dated August 15, 2016 ML16230A543 (Package). NAC International Supplement to Submission of Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information No. 2 Related to the MAGNASTOR® Cask System, Amendment No. 7 Request, CoC No. 1031, Letter Dated September 7, 2016 ML16253A005. NAC International MAGNASTOR Storage System, Proposed CoC, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 7 ML16295A243. NAC International MAGNASTOR Storage System, Proposed Tech Specs, Appendix A, Amendment No. 7 ML16295A248. NAC International MAGNASTOR Storage System, Proposed Tech Specs, Appendix B, Amendment No. 7 ML16295A252. NAC International MAGNASTOR Storage System, Proposed Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report, Amendment No. 7 ML16295A258.

    The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-0008. The Federal Rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2017-0008); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

    Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

    PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

    2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1031 is revised to read as follows:
    § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

    Certificate Number: 1031.

    Initial Certificate Effective Date: February 4, 2009, superseded by Initial Certificate, Revision 1, on February 1, 2016.

    Initial Certificate, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 1, 2016.

    Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: August 30, 2010, superseded by Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on February 1, 2016.

    Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 1, 2016.

    Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: January 30, 2012, superseded by Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, on February 1, 2016.

    Amendment Number 2, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 1, 2016.

    Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: July 25, 2013, superseded by Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, on February 1, 2016.

    Amendment Number 3, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 1, 2016.

    Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: April 14, 2015.

    Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: June 29, 2015.

    Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: December 21, 2016.

    Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: August 21, 2017.

    SAR Submitted by: NAC International, Inc.

    SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the MAGNASTOR® System.

    Docket Number: 72-1031.

    Certificate Expiration Date: February 4, 2029.

    Model Number: MAGNASTOR®.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Victor M. McCree, Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11682 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0529; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-123-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or 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 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0529; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0529; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-123-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 2016-0129, dated June 23, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the DA [Dassault Aviation] Falcon 900EX type design relating to Falcon 900EX Easy, Falcon 900LX and Falcon 900DX variants are included in Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.

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

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0052 [which corresponds to AD 2014-16-27, Amendment 39-17951 (79 FR 51071, August 27, 2014) (“2014-16-27”)] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in DA Falcon 900EX Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113875) at revision 7.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 9 of DA Falcon 900EX Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113875) (hereafter referred to as “the ALS” in this AD), which contains new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The ALS introduces, among others, the following new tasks:

    —Task 53-50-00-220-803 “Detailed inspection of the baggage compartment”; —Task 53-50-00-220-807 “Detailed inspection of the upper part of frame 30.”

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0052, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.

    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-2017-0529.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 9, dated November 2015, of the Falcon 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX Maintenance Manual. The service information describes procedures, maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the AMM. 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 proposed AD would require 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 operational safety of the airplane.

    This proposed AD would not supersede AD 2014-16-27. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations than those required by AD 2014-16-27. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2014-16-27.

    Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.

    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.

    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.

    When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).

    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.

    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.

    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD.

    This proposed AD therefore applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 63 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 or inspection program revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $5,355
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2017-0529; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-123-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 21, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-16-27, Amendment 39-17951 (79 FR 51071, August 27, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-27”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, serial number (S/N) 97 and S/N 120 and higher, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 1, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent 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 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 9, dated November 2015, of the Falcon 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 9, dated November 2015, of the Falcon 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times specified in the maintenance manual or 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.

    (1) The term “LDG” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total airplane landings.

    (2) The term “FH” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight hours.

    (3) The term “FC” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight cycles.

    (4) The term “M” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means months.

    (h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

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

    (i) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-16-27.

    (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. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0129, dated June 23, 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-2017-0529.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11259 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0492; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-025-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various normal and transport category rotorcraft with certain Honeywell EGPWS installed. This proposed AD would require updating the software version of the EGPWS. This proposed AD is prompted by a software defect that prevents the EGPWS from providing terrain warnings. The proposed actions are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    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-2017-0492; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic 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 service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Honeywell International Inc., 15001 NE. 36 Street, Redmond, Washington 98052-5317; telephone (800) 601-3099; internet address www.myaerospace.com. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Judy Heredia, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5335; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Honeywell MK XXI EGPWS part number (P/N) 965-1227-005 and MK XXII EGPWS P/N 965-1595-020, P/N 965-1595-021, 965-1595-022, 965-1595-024, 965-1595-026, 965-1595-028, and 965-1595-030 installed on various normal and transport category helicopters from five manufacturers. This proposed AD would require updating the software of the EGPWS. This proposed AD is prompted by a software defect found by Honeywell in certain MK XXI and MK XXII EGPWSs during testing. The testing revealed the terrain alerting feature will not function as intended in certain specific geographical areas under altitudes of 175-feet mean sea level (MSL). According to Honeywell, the terrain display is not affected by the defect and will correctly present terrain and its corresponding elevation information. However, in some locations, the EGPWS will not issue a warning or caution for terrain, water, or obstacles below 175 feel MSL. Without this feature of the EGPWS, the helicopter could potentially operate into threatening terrain or obstacles without providing any warning to the crew, resulting in loss of the helicopter. Since the defect was discovered, Honeywell has developed a software modification (MOD) that corrects this condition.

    Record of Ex Parte Communication

    In preparation of AD actions such as notices of proposed rulemaking and immediately adopted final rules, it is the practice of the FAA to obtain technical information and information on the operational and economic impact from design approval holders and aircraft operators. We discussed certain aspects of this proposed AD by email with Honeywell. A copy of each email contact can be found in the rulemaking docket. For information on locating the docket, see “Examining the AD Docket.”

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) 965-1227-34-0001, Revision 0, dated May 4, 2015 (SB 965-1227-34-0001); Honeywell SB 965-1595-34-0034, Revision 0, dated February 18, 2015 (SB 965-1595-34-0034); and Honeywell SB 965-1595-34-0035, Revision 0, dated March 25, 2015 (SB 965-1595-34-0035). SB 965-1227-34-0001 specifies procedures for installing and verifying a software MOD to a certain part-numbered MK XXI EGPWS and for replacing the front panel label identifying the software version. SB 965-1595-34-0034 specifies procedures for installing and verifying a software MOD to certain part-numbered MK XXII EGPWS and for replacing the front panel label identifying the software version. SB 965-1595-34-0035 specifies procedures for installing and verifying a software MOD to certain part-numbered MK XXII EGPWS and for replacing the front panel label identifying the software version. This service information also states that terrain database version 437 must be installed prior to updating the EGPWS software.

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

    Other Related Service Information

    We also reviewed Honeywell SB ATA No. 965-1590/1595-34-18, dated July 30, 2004. This service information contains procedures for updating the MK XXII EGPWS with terrain database version 437 and verifying the updated software was successfully installed.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    By following certain procedures in the manufacturer's service bulletin, this proposed AD would require, within 1,080 hours time-in-service (TIS), installing terrain database version 437 if not already installed; updating, installing, and confirming software MOD 1 or MOD 2 as determined by the model and serial number of the EGPWS; and replacing the software version label on the EGPWS front face.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information requires the software MODs to be accomplished within 60 months, while this proposed AD would require compliance within 1,080 hours TIS.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 3,000 appliances installed on helicopters of U.S. Registry.

    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, updating and confirming the software and replacing the software version label would require about 0.5 work-hour, and required parts would cost $2,500, for a total cost of $2,543 per helicopter and $7,629,000 for the U.S. fleet.

    According to Honeywell's service information all 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 by Honeywell. Accordingly, 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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    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): Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell): Docket No. FAA-2017-0492; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-025-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Honeywell MK XXI Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) part number (P/N) 965-1227-005 with software modification (MOD) 1 and MK XXII EGPWS P/N 965-1595-020 with MOD 1, P/N 965-1595-021 with MOD 1, 965-1595-022 with MOD 1, 965-1595-024 with MOD 1, 965-1595-026 with MOD 1, 965-1595-028 with MOD 0, and 965-1595-030 with MOD 0. These EGPWSs are installed on, but not limited to, the following helicopters, certificated in any category:

    (1) Agusta S.p.A. Model A109 and AW139;

    (2) Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, SA-365N, EC130B4, EC130T2, EC 155B, EC155B1, and EC225LP;

    (3) Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3;

    (4) Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. Model 212 and 412;

    (5) Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 407;

    (6) Bell Helicopter Textron Model 430;

    (7) MD Helicopters, Inc. Model MD900; and

    (8) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76B, S-76C, S-76D, and S-92A.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of an EGPWS to generate a terrain warning, which could result in flight into terrain.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 7, 2017.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 1,080 hours time-in-service:

    (1) Install terrain database version 437 if not already installed.

    (2) For helicopters with an MK XXI EGPWS P/N 965-1227-005:

    (i) Update the software by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1)(a) through 3.B.(1)(j), of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) 965-1227-34-0001, Revision 0, dated May 4, 2015 (SB 965-1227-34-0001).

    (ii) Determine whether the software updated by following paragraphs 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(d) of SB 965-1227-34-0001.

    (iii) Install a new software version label on the EGPWS by following paragraph 3.D.(1) or 3.D.(2), as appropriate for your model EGPWS, of SB 965-1227-34-0001.

    (3) For helicopters with an MK XXII EGPWS P/N 965-1595-020, P/N 965-1595-021, or P/N 965-1595-022:

    (i) Update the software by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C.(1)(a) through (h), of Honeywell SB 965-1595-34-0035, Revision 0, dated March 25, 2015 (SB 965-1595-34-0035).

    (ii) Determine whether the software updated by following paragraphs 3.C.(2)(a) through 3.C.(2)(d)6 or 3.C.(3)(a) through (g) of SB 965-1595-34-0035.

    (iii) Install a new software version label on the EGPWS by following paragraph 3.E.(1) or 3.E.(2), as appropriate for your model EGPWS, of SB 965-1595-34-0035.

    (4) For helicopters with an MK XXII EGPWS P/N 965-1595-024, P/N 965-1595-026, P/N 965-1595-028, or P/N 965-1595-030:

    (i) Update the software by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C.(1)(a) through 3.C.(1)(h), of Honeywell Service Bulletin 965-1595-34-0034, Revision 0, dated February 18, 2015 (SB 965-1595-34-0034).

    (ii) Determine whether the software updated by following paragraphs 3.C.(2)(a) through 3.C.(2)(d)6 or 3.C.(3)(a) through 3.C.(3)(g) of SB 965-1595-34-0034.

    (iii) Install a new software version label on the EGPWS by following paragraph 3.E.(1) or 3.E.(2), as appropriate for your model EGPWS, of SB 965-1595-34-0034.

    (5) Do not install an EGPWS on any helicopter unless you have complied with the requirements in this AD.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Judy Heredia, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5335; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    Honeywell SB ATA No. 965-1590/1595-34-18, dated July 30, 2004, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 15001 NE. 36 Street, Redmond, Washington, 98052-5317; telephone (800) 601-3099; internet address www.myaerospace.com. You may review a copy of information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3444 Ground Proximity System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 15, 2017. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11174 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0525; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-121-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or 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 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0525; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0525; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-121-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0127, dated June 23, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the DA [Dassault Aviation] Mystère-Falcon 900 type design are included in Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.

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

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0053 [which corresponds with AD 2016-01-16, Amendment 39-18376 (81 FR 3320, January 21, 2016) (“AD 2016-01-16”)] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in DA Mystère-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113873) at revision 20.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 22 of Mystère-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113873) (hereafter referred to as “the ALS” in this [EASA] AD), which contains new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The ALS introduces, among others, the following new tasks:

    —Task 53-40-07-280-803 “Special detailed inspection of the repaired areas on centre-wing lower panel”; —Task 53-50-00-220-803 “Detailed inspection of the baggage compartment”; —Task 53-50-00-220-807 “Detailed inspection of the upper part of frame 30.”

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0053, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.

    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-2017-0525.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual. The service information describes procedures, maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the AMM. 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 proposed AD would require 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 operational safety of the airplane.

    This proposed AD would not supersede AD 2016-01-16. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations than those required by AD 2016-01-16. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all the requirements of AD 2016-01-16.

    Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.

    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.

    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.

    When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).

    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.

    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.

    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD. This proposed AD therefore applies Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 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 or inspection program revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $5,525
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2017-0525; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-121-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 21, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2016-01-16, Amendment 39-18376 (81 FR 3320, January 21, 2016) (“AD 2016-01-16”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 1, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent 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 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times specified in the maintenance manual, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.

    (1) The term “LDG” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total airplane landings.

    (2) The term “FH” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight hours.

    (3) The term “FC” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight cycles.

    (4) The term “M” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means months.

    (h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

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

    (i) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all the requirements of AD 2016-01-16.

    (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. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0127, dated June 23, 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-2017-0525.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11261 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0527; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-015-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 supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-09-12, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. AD 2016-09-12 currently requires repetitive inspections of the bilge barriers located in the forward and aft cargo compartments for disengaged decompression panels, and reinstalling any disengaged panels. Since we issued AD 2016-09-12, a terminating modification has been developed to address the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would retain the actions required by AD 2016-09-12 and require replacing the existing decompression panels with new panels and straps, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD also removes airplanes from the effectivity. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 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-2017-0527.

    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-2017-0527; 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:

    Caspar Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; 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-2017-0527; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-015-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

    On April 25, 2016, we issued AD 2016-09-12, Amendment 39-18510 (81 FR 27300, May 6, 2016) (“AD 2016-09-12”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. AD 2016-09-12 requires repetitive inspections of the bilge barriers located in the forward and aft cargo compartments for disengaged decompression panels, and reinstalling any disengaged panels. AD 2016-09-12 resulted from reports of disengaged decompression panels found on in-service airplanes. We issued AD 2016-09-12 to detect and correct decompression panels that had disengaged from the bilge barriers located in the forward and aft cargo compartments. In the event of a cargo compartment fire, this condition would provide a path for smoke and Halon to enter the flight compartment and passenger cabin, which could result in the inability to contain and extinguish a fire.

    Actions Since AD 2016-09-12 Was Issued

    The preamble to AD 2016-09-12 specifies that we consider the requirements “interim action” and that the airplane manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition. That AD explains that we might consider further rulemaking if a modification is developed, approved, and available. The manufacturer now has developed such a modification, and we have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500008-00, Issue 001, dated December 7, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing decompression panels with new panels and adjustable straps.

    We also reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500009-00, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the bilge barriers located in the forward and aft cargo compartments for disengaged decompression panels, and reinstalling any disengaged panels.

    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 accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. This proposed AD also removes airplanes from the applicability of AD 2016-09-12. Airplanes having line numbers 10, 16 through 19, and 499 and subsequent are identified in AD 2016-09-12. However, the unsafe condition was addressed on those airplanes in production; therefore they are not affected by the identified unsafe condition.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 50 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
  • Retained inspections 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 per inspection cycle $0 $255 per inspection cycle $12,750 per inspection cycle. New proposed modification 7 work-hours × $85 per hour = $595 11,748 12,343 617,150

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary reinstallation that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Reinstallation 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85
    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 have 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 that the 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) 2016-09-12, Amendment 39-18510 (81 FR 27300, May 6, 2016), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0527; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-015-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 21, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-09-12, Amendment 39-18510 (81 FR 27300, May 6, 2016) (“AD 2016-09-12”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500008-00, Issue 001, dated December 7, 2016.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several reports of disengaged decompression panels found on in-service airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent decompression panels from disengaging from the bilge barriers located in the forward and aft cargo compartments. In the event of a cargo compartment fire, this condition would provide a path for smoke and Halon to enter the flight compartment and passenger cabin, which could result in the inability to contain and extinguish a fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Repetitive Inspections With Added Reference to Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-09-12, with an added reference to terminating action: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the bilge barriers located in the forward and aft cargo compartments for disengaged decompression panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500009-00, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 5. “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500009-00, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2015; until the terminating modification required by paragraph (i) of this AD is done.

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500009-00, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2015: Inspect within 30 days after May 23, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-09-12).

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500009-00, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2015: Inspect within 180 flight cycles or within 90 days after May 23, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-09-12), whichever occurs later.

    (h) Retained Reinstallation of Decompression Panels With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2016-09-12, with no changes: If any disengaged decompression panel is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD; before further flight, reinstall the panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500009-00, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2015.

    (i) New Terminating Modification

    Within 22 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the existing decompression panels of the bilge barriers located in the forward and aft cargo compartments with new decompression panels and adjustable straps, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500008-00, Issue 001, dated December 7, 2016; except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. Accomplishing this modification terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Step 3 of Task 10 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500008-00, Issue 001, dated December 7, 2016, identifies part number (P/N) C412705-577, the correct part number is P/N C412705-575.

    (2) Where Step 4 of Task 10 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB500008-00, Issue 001, dated December 7, 2016, identifies P/N C412705-575, the correct part number is P/N C412705-577.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (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, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-09-12, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    (5) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(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 Caspar Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; 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 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11258 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0524; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-122-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or 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 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0524; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0524; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-122-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0128, dated June 23, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the DA [Dassault Aviation] Falcon 900EX type design are included in Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.

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

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0051 [which corresponds to AD 2014-16-26, Amendment 39-17950 (79 FR 51077, August 27, 2014) (“2014-16-26”)] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in DA Falcon 900EX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113874) at revision 12.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 14 of Falcon 900EX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113874) (hereafter referred to as “the ALS” in this AD), which contains new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The ALS introduces, among others, the following new tasks:

    —Task 53-50-00-220-803 “Detailed inspection of the baggage compartment”; —Task 53-50-00-220-807 “Detailed inspection of the upper part of frame 30.”

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0051, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.

    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-2017-0524.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the Falcon 900EX Maintenance Manual. The service information describes procedures, maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the AMM. 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 proposed AD would require 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 operational safety of the airplane.

    This proposed AD would not supersede AD 2014-16-26. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations than those required by AD 2014-16-26. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2014-16-26.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 70 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 or inspection program revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $5,950
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2017-0524; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-122-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 21, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-16-26, Amendment 39-17950 (79 FR 51077, August 27, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-26”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1 through 96 inclusive, and serial numbers 98 through 119 inclusive, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent 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 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the Falcon 900EX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the Falcon 900EX Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times specified in the maintenance manual, or 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.

    (1) The term “LDG” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total airplane landings.

    (2) The term “FH” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight hours.

    (3) The term “FC” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight cycles.

    (4) The term “M” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means months.

    (h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

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

    (i) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-16-26.

    (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. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0128, dated June 23, 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-2017-0524.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11260 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0277; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-9] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Columbia, MS 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 Marion General Hospital Heliport, Columbia, MS, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving Marion General Hospital Heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the heliport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202)-366-9826.You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0277; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received 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.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line 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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 proposed 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 Marion General Hospital Heliport, Columbia, MS, to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rule 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-2017-0277 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-9) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons 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 Docket No. FAA-2017-0277; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or 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 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 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 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 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 considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Marion General Hospital Heliport, Columbia, MS, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operation at Marion General Hospital Heliport.

    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 designation listed in this document will be published subsequently 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 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 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.

    Lists 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, 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. ASO MS E5 Marion General, Columbia, MS [New] Marion General Hospital Heliport, MS (Lat. 31°15′17″ N., long. 89°48′19″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Marion General Hospital Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 19, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11378 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0289; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-4] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Wellsboro, PA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Wellsboro, PA, as the airspace surrounding Wellsboro Johnston Airport was inadvertently removed. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or 202-366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0289; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received 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.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on-line 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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 E airspace in the Wellsboro, PA area.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons 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 Docket No. FAA-2017-0289; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-4.” 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 from and comments submitted through 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 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 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 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 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 considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 8.2-mile radius of Wellsboro Johnston Airport, Wellsboro, PA, as this airspace was inadvertently removed, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations 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 designation listed in this document will be published subsequently 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 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 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.

    Lists 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 Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, 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. AEA PA E5 Wellsboro, PA [Amended] Nessmuk Helipad Point in Space Coordinates (Lat. 41°44′11″ N., long. 77°18′11″ W.) Wellsboro Johnston Airport, PA (Lat. 41°43′41″ N., long. 77°23′44″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the Nessmuk Helipad, and within an 8.2-mile radius of Wellsboro Johnston Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 19, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11392 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0320; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-12] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Picayune, MS 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 Highland Community Hospital Heliport, Picayune, MS, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving Highland Community Hospital Heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the heliport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0320; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received 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.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line 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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 proposed 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 Highland Community Hospital Heliport, Picayune, MS, to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at the heliport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rule 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-2017-0320 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-12) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons 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 Docket No. FAA-2017-0320; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or 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 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 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 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 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 considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Highland Community Hospital Heliport, Picayune, MS, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Highland Community Hospital Heliport.

    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 designation listed in this document will be published subsequently 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 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 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.

    Lists 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, 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. ASO MS E5 Highland Community, Picayune, MS [New] Highland Community Hospital Heliport, MS (Lat. 30°32′57″ N., long. 89°39′57″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Highland Community Hospital Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 19, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11382 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0216; FRL-9963-42-Region 8] Attainment Date Extensions for the Logan, Utah-Idaho 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant two, one-year extensions to the Moderate attainment date for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Logan, Utah (UT)-Idaho (ID) nonattainment area. This action is based on the EPA's evaluation of air quality monitoring data and extension requests submitted by the State of Utah on May 2, 2017, and the State of Idaho on December 15, 2015, February 26, 2016, and April 25, 2017. The EPA is proposing to grant a one-year extension of the Moderate attainment date from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, and is proposing to grant a second one-year extension of the Moderate attainment date from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017, in accordance with section 188(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0216 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to the public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information

    a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

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

    2. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

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

    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

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

    II. Background A. Designation and Classification of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), lowering the primary and secondary standards from the 1997 standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated a number of areas as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3, including the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. The EPA originally designated these areas under the general provisions of CAA title I, part D, subpart 1 (“subpart 1”), under which attainment plans must provide for the attainment of a specific NAAQS (in this case, the 2006 PM2.5 standards) as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the date the areas were designated nonattainment.

    Following this designation of nonattainment for PM2.5 and consistent with EPA guidance, the State of Utah and the State of Idaho developed PM2.5 attainment plans intended to meet the general requirements of subpart 1. Utah and Idaho each submitted a PM2.5 state implementation plan (SIP) for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area on December 14, 2012. On May 9, 2013, Utah submitted a SIP that contained multiple area source rules intended to reduce emissions in the PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

    Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard based on both the general nonattainment area requirements in subpart 1 and the PM-specific requirements of CAA title I, part D, subpart 4 (“subpart 4”). Under subpart 4, PM nonattainment areas are initially classified as Moderate, and Moderate area attainment plans must address the requirements of subpart 4 as well as subpart 1. Additionally, CAA subpart 4 establishes a different SIP submittal due date and attainment year. For a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, the attainment SIP is due no later than 18 months after designation and the attainment year is as expeditiously as practicable after designation but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after designation. On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (“the Classification and Deadlines Rule”). This rule classified the areas that were designated in 2009 as nonattainment to Moderate, and set the attainment SIP submittal due date for those areas at December 31, 2014. This rule did not affect the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015.

    After the court's decision, on December 16, 2014, the Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) withdrew all prior Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP submissions and submitted a new SIP to address both the general requirements of subpart 1 and the PM-specific requirements of subpart 4 for Moderate areas. Additionally, on December 24, 2014, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted a supplement to the 2012 SIP submission (“2014 amendment”) that included additional analyses intended to meet CAA subpart 4 requirements.

    On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (“PM2.5 Implementation Rule”), 81 FR 58010, which addressed the January 4, 2013 court ruling. The final implementation rule provides the EPA's interpretation of the requirements applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas and explains how air agencies can meet the statutory SIP requirements that apply under subparts 1 and 4 to areas designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS, such as: General requirements for attainment plan due dates and attainment demonstrations; provisions for demonstrating reasonable further progress; quantitative milestones; contingency measures; nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting programs; and reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including reasonably available control technology (RACT). The statutory attainment planning requirements established in subparts 1 and 4 are designed to ensure that states implement measures that provide for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable by requiring states to adopt feasible emissions reduction strategies for PM2.5 and its precursors to achieve incremental reductions leading to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in nonattainment areas.

    B. CAA Requirements for an Attainment Date Extension

    Under CAA section 188(d), the EPA may grant a state's request to extend the attainment date for a Moderate area if: “(1) the state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan; and (2) no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour [NAAQS] level for PM10 has occurred in the area in the year preceding the Extension Year, and the annual mean concentration for PM10 in the area for such year is less than or equal to the standard level.” The EPA cannot issue more than two, one-year extensions for a single Moderate area.

    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule interprets section 188(d) for PM2.5 Moderate areas. Under the regulations, the EPA may grant an extension if the agency determines that: (1) The state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan; and (2) for an area designated nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for which the state seeks an attainment date extension, the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration at each monitor in that area for the calendar year that includes the applicable attainment date is less than or equal to the level of the applicable 24-hour standard (calculated according to the data analysis requirements in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N). 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1). The applicable implementation plan is defined as the plan submitted to meet Moderate area requirements. Id. § 51.1005(a)(2). The PM2.5 Implementation Rule explains that, to meet the first criterion, a state needs to show that it has “submitted the necessary attainment plan for the area for the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the control measures in the submission.” 81 FR 58070/3.

    In the absence of an attainment date extension, upon a determination of failure to attain by the EPA, the area would be reclassified to Serious by operation of law under CAA section 188(b)(2). If an extension to the attainment date is granted, the EPA must determine whether the area attained the PM2.5 NAAQS at the end of the extension year. If the requisite three consecutive years of air quality data needed to determine attainment are still not available after the first extension, the state may apply for a second one-year extension of the attainment date if the requirements listed above for the first extension remain satisfied. The EPA will also consider the state's PM2.5 planning progress for the area in the year for which the first extension is granted, and if the area does not have the requisite three consecutive years of air quality data needed to demonstrate attainment at the end of the second extension, no further extensions of the attainment date can be granted. Once a final determination of failure to attain is made by the EPA and published in the Federal Register, the area will be reclassified as Serious by operation of law. See CAA section 188(b)(2).

    As a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area was required by CAA section 188 to attain the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015. On December 15, 2015, and February 26, 2016, the State of Idaho requested that the EPA use the discretion allowed under CAA section 188(d) to grant a one-year extension to the Moderate area attainment date for Logan, UT-ID, from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016. In a proposed action published December 16, 2016,1 the EPA denied Idaho's request because at the time the nonattainment area did not meet the air quality criterion under CAA section 188(d). Specifically, the Logan, Utah Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor used for determining compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS did not have complete and valid 2015 data in accordance with EPA regulations (81 FR 91088). As a result, the EPA could not determine that the data for the Logan monitor met the 98th percentile requirement set forth in 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1).

    1 Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date, Determinations of Failure to Attain by the Attainment Date and Reclassification for Certain Nonattainment Areas for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 81 FR 91088 (Dec. 16, 2016).

    Following this proposed action, and as a result of subsequent events described below, the State of Idaho submitted a letter on April 25, 2017, requesting a second one-year Moderate area attainment date extension, from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017. On May 2, 2017, the State of Utah requested two, one-year extensions of the attainment date for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area, from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, and then December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017. Each of the extension requests from Idaho and Utah can be found in the Region 8 and Region 10 dockets for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area proposed extension request actions, EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0216 and EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0193.

    III. Basis for EPA's Proposed Action A. Compliance With the Applicable SIP

    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule interprets the extension provisions found in CAA section 188(d)(1). See 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1). Under the rule, a state must show that it submitted a SIP to meet the requirements as listed in 40 CFR 51.1003(a), including the necessary control measures, and that RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures for sources in the area have been implemented. To qualify for an extension, the state must have adopted the SIP revision through the established state process, submitted the plan to the EPA, and begun implementing the plan; but the state plan would not need to have been approved by the EPA in order for the state to qualify for an extension.

    On December 4, 2012, UDAQ submitted a SIP for the Utah portion of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area, and was prepared to satisfy the requirements of CAA subpart 1, as interpreted by the EPA's Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007). After the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit ruling and subsequent EPA Classification and Deadlines Rule, the State of Utah withdrew the original SIP submittal and submitted an updated SIP to cover CAA subpart 1 and subpart 4 on December 22, 2014. This SIP includes: (1) A modeled attainment demonstration (chapter 5 of the SIP and chapter 4 of the technical support document (TSD)); (2) an emissions inventory (chapter 4 of the SIP and chapter 3 of the TSD); (3) RACM for area and on-road mobile sources (chapter 6 of the SIP and chapter 5 of the TSD); (4) a RACT review (chapter 6 of the SIP and chapter 5 of the TSD); (5) reasonable further progress for direct PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) (chapter 8 of the SIP); (6) a demonstration that ammonia is not a significant precursor to PM2.5 in the area (chapter 4 of the TSD); (7) motor vehicle emission budgets (chapter 7 of the SIP); (8) quantitative milestones (chapter 8 of the SIP); and (9) contingency measures (chapter 9 of the SIP). The EPA intends to take action on the December 22, 2014 SIP in the near future. The Utah SIP and supporting materials, including the TSD, can be found in the docket for this action. The Idaho SIP and supporting materials can be found in Region 10's docket, EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0067. Additionally, the supporting documentation for ID's two one-year extension requests can be found in Region 10's docket, EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0193.

    EPA has reviewed Utah's existing SIP and the December 22, 2014, SIP submission and determined that the state is implementing the requirements and commitments in the submitted SIP. Based on this, the EPA proposes to determine that the state meets the criterion found in 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(i). The control measures that Utah submitted for the Logan UT-ID NAA consist of a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program and area source rules. The EPA approved the vehicle I/M program on September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54237). The program was initiated on January 1, 2014, and requires a biennial test for vehicles greater than six years old that are of model year 1969 and newer. Half of these vehicles were tested for the first time in 2014 and the rest were tested in 2015; prior to the attainment date for the area. The EPA has also approved or conditionally approved the area source rules submitted by the State. 81 FR 9343; 81 FR 71988. Some of the area source rules were implemented as early as January 1, 2013, but most carried an implementation date of December 1, 2014. All of them were effective and fully enforceable by January 1, 2015.

    Similarly, the EPA approved Idaho's woodstove curtailment ordinances, burn ban, heating device restrictions, and woodstove change-out programs as meeting the RACM/RACT requirements in this area (82 FR 729, January 4, 2017). The woodstove curtailment ordinances, burn ban, and heating device restrictions were adopted and fully implemented in the summer and fall of 2012 in preparation for Idaho's December 14, 2012 attainment plan SIP revision. The residential woodstove change-out program was conducted in 2011 to 2012, with a subsequent round of change-outs in 2013 to 2014. A full description of the control measures is included in our December 26, 2013 proposed approval (78 FR 78315) and March 25, 2014 final approval (79 FR 16201). On April 25, 2017, Idaho committed to supplementing the 2012 attainment plan SIP revision, and Idaho's December 24, 2014 amendment to the attainment plan SIP revision, to comply with the revised regulatory requirements of the 2016 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for reasonable further progress, quantitative milestones, and motor vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA's proposed conditional approval of these SIP elements is addressed under docket number EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0067.

    The EPA proposes that the criterion found in 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(i) has been met. Utah and Idaho submitted SIPs for the Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area that address the CAA requirements for Moderate areas and the states have implemented the permanent and enforceable control measures identified above and the other requirements of the SIPs.

    B. Air Quality Data

    In accordance with 40 CFR part 58, UDAQ and IDEQ both operate PM2.5 monitors in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area. The IDEQ monitoring site for 2015 and 2016 was located in Franklin, Idaho. In 2015, UDAQ operated two PM2.5 monitoring sites, at Logan and Smithfield, and in 2016, UDAQ operated only the Smithfield monitoring site. In the past, the monitor with the highest air quality design value in the nonattainment area has been located in Utah.

    As explained in the May 8, 2017 memorandum in the docket, a large number of samples from the filter-based FRM monitor at Logan were invalid. After review of the PM2.5 data for 2015, UDAQ removed the invalid samples for its filter based FRM monitor and left the valid samples in the Air Quality System (AQS) database. Additionally, some continuous sampler data from a co-located Federal Equivalent Methods (FEM) monitor were determined to have sufficient quality assurance to meet NAAQS comparison requirements. The Logan site had one FEM monitor co-located at the site, and data from this monitor were used to fill in some of the missing days in 2015, adding to the total number of samples that can be used to determine a 98th percentile value for that year and to provide for a complete 2015 monitoring year. Utah used the methodology found in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N 3.0(d)(2) and 40 CFR part 50, appendix N 3.0(e) to substitute FEM data for the days without FRM data.

    The EPA has reviewed this site and, using the criteria found in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, has determined that the quality assurance (QA) for the continuous FEM monitor is acceptable such that data from the FEM monitor can be substituted for the days for which the FRM monitor data was invalid. Additional information related to these monitors can be found in the November 23, 2016 memoranda found in the docket for this proposed action.

    On March 14, 2017, the EPA approved Utah's 2016 Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP). As part of the approval, the EPA approved the closing of the Logan monitoring station (AQS ID# 49-005-0004) and the opening of the Smithfield monitoring station (AQS ID# 49-005-0007). The Logan and Smithfield monitoring stations both ran in 2015; however, the Smithfield monitoring site data was incomplete for 2015 because the station, including the co-located continuous monitor, was not operating in January of that year. The Logan monitoring site shut down on December 31, 2015, and Smithfield became the only operating monitor in the Utah portion of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area. Additionally, on April 20, 2017, UDAQ submitted a letter that contained the AMP 600 and AMP 450NC reports required to certify the 2016 air quality data in Utah. UDAQ completed the data certification process in AQS and with the April 20, 2017 letter, certifies that the 2016 air quality data is accurate.

    The EPA is using data from calendar year 2015 to determine whether the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area met the air quality criteria for granting a one-year extension of the attainment date, from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, under CAA section 188(d). Additionally, the EPA is using calendar year 2016 data to determine whether the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area met the air quality criteria for granting an extension of the attainment date from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017.

    In 2015, the 98th percentile for the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area at the Logan (Utah) and Franklin (Idaho) monitoring sites were 29.0 µg/m3 and 18.8 µg/m3, respectively, which are both below the 35 µg/m3 standard. Thus, the area met the requirement to qualify for a one-year attainment date extension under CAA section 188(d)(2). See 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(ii). In 2016, the 98th percentile for the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area at the Smithfield (Utah) and Franklin (Idaho) monitoring sites were 34.4 µg/m3 and 33.3 µg/m3, respectively, which are both below the 35 µg/m3 standard. Thus, the area met the requirements to qualify for a second one-year attainment date extension under CAA section 188(d)(2). Based on the information above, the criterion in 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(ii) has been met for both one-year extensions.

    IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    In response to requests from the Governor of Utah on May 2, 2017, and from the IDEQ on December 15, 2015, February 26, 2016, and April 25, 2017, the EPA is proposing to grant two, one-year attainment date extensions to the Moderate attainment date for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. If finalized, this action would extend the Moderate area attainment date for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, and from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017. The proposed action to extend the Moderate attainment date for this nonattainment area is based on both states' compliance with the requirements for the applicable SIPs for the area and on the 2015 and 2016 PM2.5 98th percentile data from the Logan (Utah), Smithfield (Utah), and Franklin (Idaho) monitoring sites in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. If we finalize this proposal, consistent with CAA section 188(d) and 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1), the nonattainment area will remain a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, with a Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2017. Additionally, the states will not have to submit the additional planning requirements that apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas unless the area fails to attain the standard by the extended Moderate area attainment date and the area is reclassified to a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area. Consistent with CAA section 188(b)(2), the EPA will determine whether the area attained the standard within six months following the applicable attainment date.

    This action is not a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Utah and Idaho are not currently attaining the NAAQS and have not submitted maintenance plans as required under section 175(A) of the CAA or met the other statutory requirements for redesignation to attainment. The designation status in 40 CFR part 81 will remain a Moderate nonattainment area until such time as Utah and Idaho meet the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment or the area is reclassified to Serious.

    V. 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 therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed action merely approves a state request as meeting federal requirements and imposes no new requirements.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any additional information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This action merely approves a state request for an attainment date extension, and this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law. Approval of a state's request for an attainment date extension does not create any new requirements and does not directly regulate any entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Pursuant to the CAA, this action merely approves a state request for an attainment date extension.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal areas are located in the nonattainment area that will be receiving an attainment date extension. The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the federal government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe any environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action merely approves a state request for an attainment date extension and it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action merely approves a state request for an attainment date extension.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action approves a state request for an attainment date extension based on the state's compliance with requirements and commitments in its plan and recent air quality monitoring data that meets requirements for an extension.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 25, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11686 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0259; FRL-9963-32-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from facilities that emit four or more tons per year of NOX or oxides of sulfur (SOX). We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by July 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0259 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted SCAQMD 2001 Applicability 12/04/15 03/17/17 SCAQMD 2002 Allocations for NOX and SOX 10/07/16 03/17/17 SCAQMD 2005 New Source Review for Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 12/04/15 03/17/17 SCAQMD 2011: Attachment C Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures 12/04/15 03/17/17 SCAQMD 2011: Chapter 3 Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Process Units—Periodic Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment 12/04/15 03/17/17 SCAQMD 2012: Attachment C Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures 12/04/15 03/17/17 SCAQMD 2012: Chapter 4 Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Process Units—Periodic Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment 12/04/15 03/17/17 SCAQMD 2011: Attachment E Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Definitions 02/05/16 03/17/17 SCAQMD 2012: Attachment F Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Definitions 02/05/16 03/17/17

    On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 2001; SCAQMD Rule 2002; SCAQMD Rule 2005; SCAQMD Rule 2011, Attachment C; SCAQMD Rule 2011, Chapter 3; SCAQMD Rule 2012, Attachment C; SCAQMD Rule 2012, Chapter 4; SCAQMD Rule 2011, Attachment E; and SCAQMD Rule 2012, Attachment F met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved earlier versions of Rule 2001; Rule 2011, Attachment C; Rule 2011, Chapter 3; Rule 2012, Attachment C; Rule 2012, Chapter 4; Rule 2011, Attachment E; and Rule 2012, Attachment F into the SIP on August 29, 2006 (71 FR 51120). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved versions of these rules on May 6, 2005 and CARB submitted them to us on October 20, 2005. We approved earlier versions of Rule 2002 and Rule 2005 into the SIP on August 12, 2011 (76 FR 50128) and on December 20, 2011 (76 FR 78829). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved versions of these rules on November 5, 2010 and June 3, 2011 and CARB submitted them to us on April 5, 2011 and September 27, 2011. We are acting on only the most recently submitted versions of these rules but have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    NOx contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NOx and PM emissions. SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program consists of SCAQMD Rules 2000 through 2020. The RECLAIM amendments adopted in 2015 and 2016 were revisions to Rules 2001; 2002; 2005; 2011, Attachment C; 2011, Chapter 3; 2012, Attachment C; 2012, Chapter 4; 2011, Attachment E; and 2012, Attachment F. The primary purposes of these amendments to RECLAIM were to lower the NOx emission cap in the RECLAIM program to achieve additional emission reductions, to allow electric generating facilities (EGFs) to exit RECLAIM, to add provisions regarding facility shutdowns, to create a Regional New Source Review (NSR) Holding Account for existing electricity generating facilities constructed after 1993, and to implement other administrative and clarifying changes. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about these rules.

    II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). Because the submittal contains SIP rules that are part of an economic incentive program (EIP) and that address certain requirements of the nonattainment NSR program, we also evaluated the rule revisions in accordance with the EPA's requirements and recommendations for EIPs and NSR programs.

    Additionally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each major source of NOx in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as extreme for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 2008 8-hour ozone standards (40 CFR 81.305). Because the RECLAIM program applies to major sources of NOx emissions, these rules must implement RACT. SIP rules must also implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), including RACT, in moderate and above PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)) and must implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)). The SCAQMD regulates a PM2.5 nonattainment area classified as serious for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and as moderate for the 1997 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). We generally evaluate submitted SIPs for RACM and BACM purposes as part of our action on an attainment plan as a whole.

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, SIP revisions, rule stringency requirements, and EIP recommendations include the following:

    1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

    2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).

    3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

    4. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule” (the NOx Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

    5. “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA-452/R-01-001, EPA OAR, January 2001.

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We propose to find that the revised RECLAIM regulations satisfy the applicable CAA requirements for enforceability, NSR, SIP revisions, and economic incentive programs. In order to prevent NOx RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) associated with facilities that have shut down from entering the RECLAIM market and potentially delaying the installation of pollution controls at other RECLAIM facilities, the revised regulations establish criteria for determining a facility shutdown and the methodology for calculating the amount of NOx RTCs by which that facility's future RTC holdings will be reduced. These revisions are projected to reduce NOx emissions from RECLAIM sources by 12 tons per day by 2023.

    In addition, the revised regulations allow certain electric generating facilities to use RTCs held in a “Regional NSR Holding Account” to satisfy the NSR offset requirements specified in Rule 2005(f) but do not alter the existing requirement for all sources to hold RTCs in amounts equal to the amounts of required offsets.

    The revised rules are projected to achieve significant environmental benefits and would not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

    We are not reviewing the submitted rule revisions with respect to RACT requirements at this time because the District has not yet submitted an evaluation of the revised program in accordance with RACT requirements. Following the District's submission of a RACT evaluation for the revised RECLAIM rules, we intend to publish a separate proposed rule providing our evaluation of the program in accordance with RACT requirements and seeking public comment on that evaluation.

    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to fully approve the submitted rules under section 110(k)(3) of the Act based on our conclusion that they satisfy the applicable CAA requirements for enforceability, NSR, SIP revisions, and economic incentive programs. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until July 6, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SCAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 17, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11681 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557; FRL-9963-29-Region 8] Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Colorado submitted to demonstrate that the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

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

    • Follow directions and organize your comments;

    • Explain why you agree or disagree;

    • Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;

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

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

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

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

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

    II. Background

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based on a three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 μg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 μg/m3 (78 FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013).

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs providing for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made to satisfy sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from those intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA; “regional haze SIP” submissions to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Infrastructure SIP submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that the existing SIPs for SO2 and PM2.5 already satisfy those requirements. EPA guidance on these provisions and their implementation may be found in the following documents: “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (October 2, 2007); “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (Sep. 25, 2009); “Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (Oct. 14, 2011); and “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” (Sept. 13, 2013).

    III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    The EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Colorado that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). This provision directs that, within three years after the promulgation of a NAAQS, states make SIP submissions that provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of the NAAQS. The statute imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and does not condition this requirement on the EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for these infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The section 110(a)(2) list of required elements contains a variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some to required substantive program provisions, and some to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.1 The EPA has concluded that although the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is clear, some of the section 110(a)(2) language is ambiguous with respect to what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission. For discussion of some of these ambiguities and the EPA's interpretation of them, see Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014), under “III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?”

    1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007.

    IV. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are:

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures

    • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system

    • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures

    • 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport

    • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies

    • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting

    • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers

    • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; PSD and visibility protection

    • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data

    • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees

    • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

    Section VI, below, contains a detailed discussion of each of these elements.

    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and are therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section 110(a)(2)(C), to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as “nonattainment NSR”) required under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. Therefore, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). Further, the EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS, because the visibility requirements in part C, title 1 of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

    V. How did Colorado address the infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) submitted certifications concerning Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on July 10, 2013, and for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 1, 2015. Colorado's infrastructure certifications demonstrate how the State has plans in place that meet the applicable requirements of section 110 for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Colorado infrastructure SIPs were subject to public notice and comment, as indicated in the cover letter of each certification, and are available within the electronic docket for today's proposed action at www.regulations.gov. These plans reference the current Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) regulations and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). The cited AQCC regulations are available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs and http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/. Colorado's SIP, air pollution control regulations, and statutes that have been previously approved by the EPA and incorporated into the Colorado SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.320.

    VI. Analysis of the State Submittals

    1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that SIPs include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.

    Colorado's infrastructure SIP submissions identify existing EPA-approved SIP provisions limiting emissions of relevant pollutants. The State references a variety of SIP-approved Colorado AQCC regulations cited under element (C), including: Regulation 1, Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Dioxides; Regulation 3, Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollution Emission Notice Requirements; Regulation 4, Woodburning Controls; Regulation 7, Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Nitrogen Oxides; Regulation 11, Motor Vehicle Inspection; Regulation 16, Street Sanding and Sweeping; and Common Provisions Regulation. Subject to the following clarifications, the EPA proposes to find that SIP-approved AQCC regulations citied in Colorado's certifications provide enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    First, the EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Furthermore, Colorado has no areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado's certifications (contained within this docket) generally listed provisions within its SIP which regulate pollutants through various programs, such as limits on emissions of particulate matter (PM) in Regulation 1, woodburning controls in Regulation 4, and the State's minor NSR and PSD programs in Regulation 3. This suffices, in the case of Colorado, to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Second, as previously discussed, the EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such provisions that are contrary to the CAA and to EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, the EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

    As a final clarification, in this action the EPA is also not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provision with regard to excess emissions during SSM operations at a facility. A number of states have SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,2 and the agency is addressing such state regulations separately (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015).

    2 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to the EPA Air Division Directors, “State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (Sep. 20, 1999).

    Subject to the above clarifications, the EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques to meet the applicable requirements of this element.

    2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to “(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.”

    The provisions for episode monitoring, data compilation and reporting, public availability of information, and annual network reviews are found in the statewide monitoring SIP (58 FR 49435, Sept. 23, 1993). As part of the monitoring SIP, Colorado submits an Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP) each year for EPA approval. The EPA approved 2015 and 2016 network changes through an AMNP response letter (contained within the docket) mailed to CDPHE on December 22, 2016. The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) also periodically submits a Quality Management Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan to the EPA. These plans cover procedures to monitor and analyze data.

    In our August 19, 2015 rulemaking (80 FR 50205), we conditionally approved element (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS based on Colorado's commitment to install and operate a second near-road NO2 monitoring site no later than December 31, 2015. In a letter dated February 17, 2016 (contained within this docket), the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division notified the EPA that the second near-road site in Denver became operational on October 1, 2015, thus satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 58.10(a)(5)(iv).

    We find Colorado's SIP adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and therefore propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element.

    3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to “include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D.”

    To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this action, the EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. The EPA is evaluating the State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act, and the State's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).

    Enforcement of Control Measures Requirement

    The State's submissions for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure requirement cite a variety of SIP-approved Colorado AQCC regulations that provide for enforcement of emission limits and control measures. These include Regulation 1, Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Dioxides; Regulation 3, Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollution Emission Notice Requirements; Regulation 4, Woodburning Controls; Regulation 7, Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Nitrogen Oxides; Regulation 11, Motor Vehicle Inspection; Regulation 16, Street Sanding and Sweeping; and Common Provisions Regulation.

    PSD Requirements

    With respect to elements (C) and (J), the EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants; this demonstration will also satisfy the requirements of element (D)(i)(II). To meet this requirement, Colorado cited SIP approved AQCC Regulation 3 Concerning Major Stationary Source New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a PSD program in the SIP that covers all regulated pollutants including greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    In addition to these requirements, there are four other revisions to the Colorado SIP that are necessary to meet the requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). These four revisions are related to (1) the Ozone Implementation NSR Update (November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612); (2) the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514); (3) the NSR PM2.5 Rule (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321); and (4) the final rulemaking entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (75 FR 64864, Oct. 20, 2010).

    On January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), we approved revisions to Colorado's PSD program that addressed the PSD requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule promulgated on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612). As a result, the approved Colorado PSD program meets the current requirements for ozone.

    With respect to GHGs, on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also held that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, (anyway sources) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

    In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 606 F. App'x. 6, at *7-8 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015), issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or “anyway” sources.3 With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), “to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emission increase from a modification.”

    3See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) (rulemaking for definition of “anyway” sources).

    The EPA is planning to take additional steps to revise the federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court and subsequent D.C. Circuit opinion. Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of these court decisions, and some states may prefer not to initiate this process until they have more information about the planned revisions to the EPA's PSD regulations. The EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in anticipation of the EPA's planned actions to revise its PSD program rules in response to the court decisions.

    The EPA has determined that Colorado's SIP is sufficient to satisfy elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs, because the PSD permitting program previously approved by the EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits issued to “anyway sources” contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Colorado's PSD program on January 25, 2016 (81 FR 3963). The approved Colorado PSD permitting program still contains some provisions regarding Step 2 sources that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision and D.C. Circuit's amended judgment. But the presence of these provisions in the previously-approved plan does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). The SIP contains the currently necessary PSD requirements for applying the BACT requirement to greenhouse gas emissions from “anyway sources.” And the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously approved provisions regarding the permitting of Step 2 sources. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision and subsequent D.C. Circuit judgment do not prevent the EPA's approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J).

    Finally, we evaluate the PSD program with respect to current requirements for PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, the EPA promulgated the rule, “Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (73 FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010, the EPA promulgated the rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).

    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered the EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional provisions for PM nonattainment areas.

    The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision, “Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 Implementation rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the decision. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 Implementation rule in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, the EPA's proposed approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to elements C or J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.

    The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not affect the EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. The EPA interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some elements.

    The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in the EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).

    On May 11, 2012, the State submitted revisions to Regulation 3 that adopted all elements of the 2008 Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. However, the submittal contained a definition of Major Source Baseline Date which was inconsistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). On May 13, 2013, the State submitted revisions to Regulation 3 which incorporate the definition of Major Source Baseline Date which was consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). These submitted revisions make Colorado's PSD program up to date with respect to current requirements for PM2.5. The EPA approved the necessary portions of Colorado's May 11, 2012 and May 13, 2013 submissions which incorporate the requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58186). Colorado's SIP-approved PSD program meets current requirements for PM2.5. The EPA therefore is proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2010 SO2 and PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act.

    Minor NSR

    The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program is found in Regulation 3 of the Colorado SIP, and was originally approved by the EPA as Regulation 3 of the SIP (see 68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since approval of the minor NSR program, the State and the EPA have relied on the program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    The EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.

    4. Interstate transport: The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called “good neighbor” provisions) require each state to submit a SIP prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements (or prongs) related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (prong 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS or (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (prong 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility.

    In this action, the EPA is addressing the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5NAAQS with regard to prongs 3 (interference with PSD) and 4 (interference with visibility protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). We are not addressing prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in this action. These prongs will be addressed in a later rulemaking.

    A. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant Deterioration (PSD)

    The PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the requirements of the EPA's PSD implementation rule(s).4 As noted in Section VI.3 of this proposed action, Colorado has such a program, and the EPA is therefore proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act.

    4 See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements.

    As stated in the 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements, in-state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS related to those particular pollutants may also have the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. One way a state may satisfy prong 3 with respect to these sources is by citing EPA-approved nonattainment NSR provisions addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated nonattainment areas. Colorado has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program that ensures regulation of major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas.5

    5See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a final rulemaking dated January 25, 2016 (81 FR 3963).

    As Colorado's SIP meets PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, and contains a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, the EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the applicable requirements of element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    B. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must address the potential for interference with visibility protection caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection as it ensures that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can still make a demonstration that satisfies the visibility requirement section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).6

    6See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements. In addition, EPA approved the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking action on the State's regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011).

    Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. The EPA approved Colorado's regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) filed separate petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of the EPA's approval of the Colorado's regional haze SIP.7 After these petitions were filed, a settlement agreement was entered into concerning the Craig Generating Station by the petitioners, the EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., and filed with the court on July 10, 2014.8 In accordance with the settlement agreement, the EPA requested and the court granted a voluntary remand to the EPA of the portions of the EPA's December 2012 regional haze SIP approval that related to Craig Unit 1. Because the additional controls at the Craig facility will be implemented through a revision to the Colorado regional haze SIP that the EPA has not yet acted on, the EPA cannot rely on this approval as automatically satisfying prong 4.

    7 WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on March 1, 2013.

    8 This settlement agreement is included in the docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014).

    The EPA does, however, consider other aspects of our approval of Colorado's regional haze SIP to be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Specifically, the EPA found that Colorado met its 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requirements to include in its regional haze SIP all measures necessary to (1) obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for any other state's Class I area to which Colorado causes or contributes to visibility impairment, and; (2) ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through a regional planning process. Colorado participated in a regional planning process with the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). In the regional planning process, Colorado analyzed the WRAP modeling and determined that emissions from the State do not significantly impact other states' Class I areas.9 Colorado accepted and incorporated the WRAP-developed visibility modeling into its regional haze SIP, and the SIP included the controls assumed in the modeling. For these reasons, the EPA determined that Colorado had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule requirements for consultation and included controls in the SIP sufficient to address the relevant requirements related to impacts on Class I areas in other states. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of prong 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    9See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.

    5. Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the Administrator of the U.S. EPA (Administrator) regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution.

    As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado's SIP-approved PSD program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the emissions of sources subject to PSD.10 This suffices to meet the notice requirement of section 126(a).

    10 See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1.

    Colorado has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or 115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those sections. In summary, the SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    6. Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide “necessary assurances that the State [. . .] will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State law to carry out [the SIP] (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof).” Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to “comply with the requirements respecting State boards” under CAA section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to provide “necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any [SIP] provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such [SIP] provision.”

    a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related issues.

    Colorado law, specifically the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (APPCA) Sections 25-7-105, 25-7-111, 42-4-301 to 42-4-316, 42-4-414 and Article 7 of Title 25, provides adequate authority for the State of Colorado APCD and AQCC to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State receives Sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership Grant along with required state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out Colorado's SIP requirements. The regulations cited by Colorado in its certifications, which are contained within this docket, also provide the necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for adequate implementation of SIP provisions by local governments. Therefore, we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    b. Sub-element (ii): State Boards

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state's SIP to contain provisions that comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive a significant portion of their income from persons subject to such permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed 11 .

    11 The EPA's proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) includes a discussion of the legislative history of how states could meet the requirements of CAA section 128.

    On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) the EPA approved the Procedural Rules, Section 1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC on January 16, 1998, into the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of section 128 of the Act. Section 1.11.0 specifies certain requirements regarding the composition of the AQCC and disclosure by its members of potential conflicts of interest. Details on how this portion of the Procedural Rules meets the requirements of section 128 are provided in our January 4, 2012 proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our April 10, 2012 action, we correspondingly approved Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado's SIP continues to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element.

    7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires “(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources; (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources; and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to [the Act], which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.”

    The Colorado AQCC Regulations listed in the State's certifications (Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common Provisions Regulation) and contained within this docket provide authority to establish a program for measurements and testing of sources, including requirements for sampling and testing. Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) requirements are defined in Regulation 3 and requires stationary sources to report their emissions on a regular basis through APENs. Regulation 3 also requires that monitoring be performed in accordance with EPA-accepted procedures, and record keeping of air pollutants. Additionally, Regulation 3 provides for a permitting program that establishes emission limitations and standards. Emissions must be reported by sources to the State for correlation with applicable emissions limitations and standards. Monitoring may be required for both construction and operating permits.

    Additionally, Colorado is required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, modifying the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and to report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado made its latest update to the NEI on January 18, 2016. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the public at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.

    Based on the analysis above, we propose to approve the Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs to “provide for authority comparable to that in [CAA section 303 12 ] and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.”

    12 Discussion of the requirements for meeting CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under “VI. Analysis of State Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.”

    Under CAA section 303, the Administrator has authority to bring suit to immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. If such action may not practicably ensure prompt protection, then the Administrator has the authority to issue temporary administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the environment, and such orders can be extended if the EPA subsequently files a civil suit. APPCA Sections 25-7-112 and 25-7-113 provide APCD with general emergency authority comparable to that in section 303 of the Act.13

    13See our proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 3098 (June 1, 2015), section VI.8 for a complete discussion on how APPCA Sections 25-7-112 and 35-7-113 provide authority comparable to that in CAA section 303.

    States must also have adequate contingency plans adopted into their SIP to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority (as discussed above). This can be met can by submitting a plan that meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations. The Denver Emergency Episode Plan (applicable to the Denver metropolitan area) addresses ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, and satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (See 74 FR 47888). Furthermore, Colorado is classified as Priority III for SO2 and accordingly is not required to submit emergency episode contingency plans for SO2. Therefore, we propose approval of Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan: (i) “[f]rom time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard[;] and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially inadequate to attain the [NAAQS] which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under this [Act].”

    The Colorado APPCA Sections 25-7-105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient authority to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    10. Consultation With government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each SIP “meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection).”

    The State has demonstrated that it has the authority and rules in place through its certifications (contained within this docket) to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 121. Furthermore, the EPA previously addressed the requirements of CAA section 127 for the Colorado SIP and determined public notification requirements are appropriate (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, 1980).

    As discussed above, the State has a SIP-approved PSD program that incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21. The EPA has further evaluated Colorado's SIP approved PSD program in this proposed action under element (C) and determined the State has satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as noted above. Therefore, the State has also satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(J).

    Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, the EPA recognizes states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.

    Based on the above analysis, we propose to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP to provide for “(i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a [NAAQS]; and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.”

    Colorado's Regulation 3 Part A.VIII (Technical Modeling and Monitoring Requirements) requires that estimates of ambient air concentrations be based on applicable air quality models approved by the EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 Part A.VIII became effective February 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). Additionally, Regulation 3 Part D, Section VI.C. requires the Division to transmit to the Administrator of the EPA a copy of each permit application relating to a major stationary source or major modification subject to this regulation, and provide notice of every action related to the consideration of such permit.

    Colorado has broad authority to develop and implement an air quality control program that includes conducting air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and provide that modeling data to the EPA. This broad authority can be found in 25-7-102, C.R.S., which requires that emission control measures be evaluated against economic, environmental, energy and other impacts, and indirectly authorizes modeling activities. Colorado also has broad authority to conduct modeling and submit supporting data to the EPA to satisfy federal nonattainment area requirements (25-7-105, 25-7-205.1, and 25-7-301, C.R.S.). The State also has the authority to submit any modeling data to the EPA on request under the Colorado Open Records Act (24-72-201 to 24-72-309, C.R.S.).

    As a result, the SIP provides for the air quality modeling that the Administrator has prescribed. Therefore, we propose to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    12. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires “the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this [Act], a fee sufficient to cover[:] (i) The reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit[;] and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under [title] V.”

    The State of Colorado requires the owner or operator of a major stationary source to pay the Division any fee necessary to cover the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any permit application. The collection of fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3, Part A.

    We also note that the State has an EPA-approved title V permit program (60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) that provides for collection of permitting fees. Final approval of the title V operating permit program became effective October 16, 2000 (65 FR 49919). Interim approval of Colorado's title V operating permit program became effective February 23, 1995 (60 FR 4563). As discussed in the proposed interim approval of the title V program (59 FR 52123, October 14, 1994), the State demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the program.

    Therefore, based on the State's experience in relying on the collection of fees as described in AQCC Regulation 3, and the use of title V fees to implement and enforce PSD permits once they are incorporated into title V permits, we propose to approve the submissions as supplemented by the State for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    13. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to “provide for consultation and participation [in SIP development] by local political subdivisions affected by [the SIP].”

    The statutory provisions cited in Colorado's SIP submittals (contained within this docket) meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting these requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    VII. What action is the EPA taking?

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure elements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we propose no action on are reflected in Table 2. A comprehensive summary of infrastructure elements organized by the EPA's proposed rule action are provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

    Table 1—List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Proposing To Approve Proposed for approval July 10, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). December 1, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). Table 2—List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Proposing To Take No Action On Proposed for no action
  • (Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action)
  • July 13, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2. December 1, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
    VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Suzanne J. Bohan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11574 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0709; FRL-9963-27-Region 8] Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of South Dakota to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0709 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

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

    • Follow directions and organize your comments;

    • Explain why you agree or disagree;

    • Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;

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

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

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

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

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

    II. Background

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 standard of 75 ppb, based on a three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 μg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 μg/m3 (78 FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013).

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for SO2 and PM2.5 already meet those requirements. The EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 Memo). On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued an additional guidance document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011, “Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2011 Memo). Most recently, the EPA issued “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo).

    III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    The EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from South Dakota that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA; “regional haze SIP” submissions required by the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.1 The EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, the EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    Examples of some of these ambiguities and the context in which the EPA interprets the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under “III. What is the Scope of this Rulemaking?”

    With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (“NSR Reform”).

    IV. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are the subject of this action are listed below.

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

    • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.

    • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.

    • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

    • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.

    • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.

    • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.

    • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

    • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

    A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the next section.

    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as “nonattainment NSR”) required under part D, and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title 1 of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

    V. How did south dakota address the infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) submitted certifications of South Dakota's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on December 20, 2013 and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 25, 2016. South Dakota's infrastructure certifications demonstrate how the State, where applicable, has plans in place that meet the requirements of section 110 for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Infrastructure SIPs were taken out for public notice and South Dakota provided an opportunity for public hearing, as indicated in the cover letter of each certification (available within this docket). These plans reference the current Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD) and South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL). These submittals are available within the electronic docket for today's proposed action at www.regulations.gov. The ARSD and SDCL referenced in the submittals are publicly available at http://legis.sd.gov/rules/RulesList.aspx and http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/default.aspx. South Dakota's SIP, air pollution control regulations and statutes that have been previously approved by the EPA and incorporated into the South Dakota SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.2170.

    VI. Analysis of the State Submittals

    1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate, to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.

    Multiple SIP-approved state air quality regulations within the ARSD and cited in South Dakota's certifications provide enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means of techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, subject to the following clarifications.

    First, the EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Furthermore, South Dakota has no areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. South Dakota's certifications (contained within this docket) generally listed provisions within its SIP which regulate pollutants through various programs, including major and minor source permit programs. This suffices, in the case of South Dakota, to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Second, as previously discussed, the EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, the EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

    Third and finally, in this action, the EPA is also not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provision with regard to excess emissions during SSM or operations at a facility. A number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance2 and the agency is addressing such state regulations separately (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015).

    2 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to the EPA Air Division Directors, “State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.” (Sept. 20, 1999).

    Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve South Dakota's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques to meet the applicable requirements of this element.

    2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to “(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.”

    Under ARSD 74:36:02, the DENR operates a network of air monitoring sites. The EPA approved South Dakota's 2016 network changes through an Ambient Air Monitoring Plan response letter (contained within the docket) mailed to the DENR on November 1, 2016. The State of South Dakota submits data to the EPA's Air Quality System database in accordance with the deadlines in 40 CFR 58.16. South Dakota's air monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    We find that South Dakota's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and therefore, propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element.

    3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to “include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D.”

    To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this action, the EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. The EPA is evaluating the State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act, and the State's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).

    Enforcement of Control Measures Requirement

    The State's submissions cite SIP approved ARSD Chapter 74:36:09 (Prevention of significant deterioration) and ARSD Chapter 74:36:20 (Construction permits for new sources and modifications) which provide for the enforcement of emission limits and control measures. SDCL 34A-1-39 through 34A-1-54 and 34A-1-62 gives the DENR authority to provide enforcement of South Dakota's measure and regulations that require new sources or modifications to existing sources to apply for and obtain an air quality permit before constructing.

    PSD Requirements

    With respect to elements (C) and (J), the EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of element (D)(i)(II) prong 3 (PSD) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. South Dakota has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    South Dakota implements the PSD program by, for the most part, incorporating by reference the federal PSD program as it existed on a specific date. The State periodically updates the PSD program by revising the date of incorporation by reference and submitting the change as a SIP revision. As a result, the SIP revisions generally reflect changes to PSD requirements that the EPA has promulgated prior to the revised date of incorporation by reference.

    On June 30, 2011, we approved a revision to the South Dakota PSD program that addressed the PSD requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule promulgated in 2005 (76 FR 43912, July 22, 2011). As a result, the approved South Dakota PSD program meets current requirements for ozone.

    With respect to GHGs, on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also held that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, (anyway sources) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

    In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 606 F. App'x. 6, at *7-8 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015), issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or “anyway sources.” 3 With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v) “to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emission increase from a modification.”

    3See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) (rulemaking for definition of “anyway” sources).

    The EPA is planning to take additional steps to revise the federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court and subsequent D.C. Circuit opinion. Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of these court decisions, and some states may prefer not to initiate this process until they have more information about the planned revisions to the EPA's PSD regulations. The EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in anticipation of the EPA's planned actions to revise its PSD program rules in response to the court decisions.

    At present, the EPA has determined that South Dakota's SIP is sufficient to satisfy elements (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J) with respect to GHGs. This is because the PSD permitting program previously approved by the EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits issued to “anyway sources” contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. The EPA most recently approved revisions to South Dakota's PSD program on October 13, 2016 (81 FR 70626). The approved South Dakota PSD permitting program does not contain provisions regarding Step 2 sources that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision and D.C. Circuit's amended judgment, as these provisions were removed in 81 FR 70626. The SIP contains the PSD requirements for applying the BACT requirement to greenhouse gas emissions from “anyway sources” that are necessary at this time. The application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of Step 2 sources. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision and subsequent D.C. Circuit judgment do not prevent the EPA's approval of South Dakota's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J).

    Finally, we evaluate the PSD program with respect to current requirements for PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, the EPA promulgated the rule, “Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (73 FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010 the EPA promulgated the rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).

    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered the EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional provisions for PM nonattainment areas.

    The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision, “Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),” (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 Implementation rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 Implementation rule in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, the EPA's proposed approval of South Dakota's infrastructure SIP as to elements C or J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.

    The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not affect the EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. The EPA interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some elements.

    The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in the EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).

    On July 22, 2011, we approved revisions to ARSD Chapter 74:36:09 that adopted by reference federal provisions of 40 CFR part 52, section 21, as they existed on July 1, 2009 (76 FR 43912, July 22, 2011). As July 1, 2009 is after the effective date of the 2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 76 FR 43912 incorporated the requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule; specifically, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) and 52.21(b)(50). On July 29, 2013, the State submitted revisions amending the ARSD pertaining to the issuance of South Dakota air quality permits. On June 27, 2014, we acted on two pieces from the July 29, 2013 submittal (see 79 FR 36419) which included the removal of ARSD Chapter 74:36:04:03:01 (Minor Source Operating Permit Variance) and revisions to ARSD Chapter 74:36:10 (New Source Review). The July 29, 2013, submittal also included revisions to ARSD Chapter 74:36:09 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) which we acted on in our January 29, 2015 rulemaking (80 FR 4799). The revision adopted by reference federal provisions of 40 CFR part 52, section 21, as they existed on July 1, 2012. As July 1, 2012, is after the effective date of the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule, the revisions to ARSD 74:36:09 as submitted on July 29, 2013, incorporated the requirements of the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii), (b)(15)(i),(ii), and paragraph (c). We approved the necessary portions of the July 29, 2013 submission to reflect the requirements of the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. South Dakota's SIP-approved PSD program therefore meets current requirements for PM2.5. As a result, the EPA is proposing to approve South Dakota's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act.

    Minor NSR

    The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program was originally approved by the EPA on September 6, 1995 (60 FR 46222). Since approval of the minor NSR program, the State and the EPA have relied on the program to assure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with regard to the NSR Reform requirements because they are outside the scope of this action. The EPA's action taken on changes to South Dakota's minor source NSR program (79 FR 36419, June 27, 2014) does not impact the approvability of Section 110(a)(2)(C) in this action.

    The EPA is proposing to approve South Dakota's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.

    4. Interstate transport: The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called “good neighbor” provisions) require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements (or prongs) related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two elements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (prong 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two elements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (prong 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility. In this action, the EPA is only addressing prongs 3 (interference with PSD) and 4 (interference with visibility protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard to the 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not addressing prong 1 or prong 2 for either NAAQS in this action, and will address these prongs in a later rulemaking.

    A. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant Deterioration (PSD)

    South Dakota's certifications for both the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS both referenced the State's SIP-approved PSD program to address prong 3 and 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Both certifications can be found in the docket for this action. With regard to the PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the requirements of the EPA's PSD implementation rule(s).4 As noted in Section VI.3 of this proposed action, South Dakota has such a program, and the EPA is therefore proposing to approve South Dakota's SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act.

    4 See 2013 Memo.

    As stated in the 2013 Memo, in-state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS related to those particular pollutants may also have the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. South Dakota does not contain any nonattainment areas. The consideration of nonattainment NSR for element 3 is therefore not relevant as all major sources locating in the State are subject to PSD. As South Dakota's SIP meets PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, the EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the applicable requirements of prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    B. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must address the potential for interference with visibility protection caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection as it ensures that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can still make a demonstration that satisfies the visibility requirement section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).5

    5 See 2013 Memo. In addition, the EPA approved the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking action on the State's regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011).

    South Dakota submitted a regional haze SIP to the EPA on January 21, 2011, and submitted an amendment to the SIP on September 19, 2011. The EPA approved South Dakota's regional haze SIP on April 26, 2012 (77 FR 24845). The EPA is proposing to find that as a result of the prior approval of the South Dakota regional haze SIP, the South Dakota SIP contains adequate provisions to address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the South Dakota SIP as meeting the requirements of prong 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both of these NAAQS.

    5. Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.

    Section 126(a) requires notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new (or modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the Administrator of the U.S. EPA (Administrator) regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution.

    As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), South Dakota's SIP-approved PSD program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the emissions of sources subject to PSD.6 This suffices to meet the notice requirement of section 126(a).

    6 See ARSD 74:36:09:03.

    South Dakota has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or 115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those sections. In summary, the SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    6. Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide “necessary assurances that the state [. . .] will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State law to carry out [the SIP] (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof).” Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to “comply with the requirements respecting state boards” under CAA section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to provide “necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any [SIP] provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such [SIP] provision.”

    a. Sub-Elements (i) and (iii): Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues

    SDCL 34A-1-57 through 34A-1-60 provide adequate authority for the State of South Dakota and the DENR to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State receives sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership Grant from the EPA along with required state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out South Dakota's SIP requirements. South Dakota's resources meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). The regulations cited by South Dakota in their certifications and contained within this docket also provide the necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for adequate implementation of SIP provisions by local governments. Therefore, we propose to approve South Dakota's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    b. Sub-Element (ii): State Boards

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state's SIP to contain provisions that comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive a significant portion of their income from persons subject to such permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.7

    7 The EPA's proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) includes a discussion of the legislative history of how states could meet the requirements of CAA section 128.

    On January 29, 2015 (80 FR 4799), the EPA approved SDCL 1-40-25.1 and revisions to ARSD 74:09, Procedures Board of Minerals and Environment, into the South Dakota SIP as meeting the requirements of section 128 of the Act. SDCL 1-40-25.1 addresses board composition requirements in section 128(a)(1) and ARSD 74:09 addresses conflict of interest requirements in section 128(a)(2). Details on how these portions of the SDCL and ARSD meet the requirements of section 128 are provided in our December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71040) proposal notice. In our January 29, 2015 action, we correspondingly approved South Dakota's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS for element (E)(ii). South Dakota's SIP continues to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element.

    7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: (i) “The installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources; (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources; and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to [the Act], which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.”

    The South Dakota provisions listed in the State's certifications and contained within this docket provide authority to establish a program for measurement and testing of sources, including requirements for sampling and testing. South Dakota's SIP approved continuous emissions monitoring system rules (ARSD 74:36:13 and contained within this docket) require facilities to monitor and report emission data. ARSD 74:36:04:15(10), Contents of operating permit, requires operating permits for minor sources to include monitoring and related record keeping and reporting requirements. Reports contain the quantity of hazardous air pollutants, in tons, emitted for each 12-month period in the reporting period and supporting documentation. Operating permits for minor sources must comply with emission limits and other requirements of the Act (ARSD 74:36:04:04 and ARSD 74:36:04:15).

    Additionally, ARSD 74:36:05:16.01(9) is applicable regarding data from sources with title V permits. South Dakota has an approved title V program (61 FR 2720, Jan. 29, 1996) and the definition of applicable requirements for a Part 70 source has been approved into its SIP at ARSD 74:36:01:05. This re-enforces a facility's record keeping and reporting emissions data responsibilities under title V permitting, even though the title V program is not approved into the SIP.

    Furthermore, South Dakota is required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. South Dakota made its latest update to the NEI on January 15, 2016. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.

    Based on the analysis above, we propose to approve the South Dakota's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs to “provide for authority comparable to that in [CAA section 303 8 ] and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.”

    8 Discussion of the requirements for meeting CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under “VI. Analysis of State Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.”

    Under CAA section 303, the Administrator has authority to bring suit to immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. If such action may not practicably assure prompt protection, then the Administrator has authority to issue temporary administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the environment, and such orders can be extended if the EPA subsequently files a civil suit. SDCL section 34A-1-45 and ARSD section 74:36:03:01 provide APCD with general emergency authority comparable to that in section 303 of the Act.9

    9See our proposed rulemaking at 79 FR 71053 (December 1, 2014), section VI.8 for a complete discussion on how SDCL section 34A-1-45 and ARSD section 74:36:03:01 provide authority comparable to that in CAA section 303.

    States must also have adequate contingency plans adopted into their SIP to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority (as discussed above). This can be met can by submitting a plan that meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations.

    Rules contained in ARSD and South Dakota's SIP adopt by reference the criteria in 40 CFR 51.151 as the air quality episode plan to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including a contingency plan to implement the emergency episode provisions of the SIP. As of the date of South Dakota's submittal, the EPA has not established priority classification for a significant harm level for PM2.5.

    Subpart H of 40 CFR part 51 requires states to classify regions and to develop contingency plans (also known as emergency episode plans) after ambient concentrations of certain criteria pollutants in an area have exceeded specified levels. However, Subpart H does not currently address requirements for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. In 2009, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum that, among other things, recommended an approach for states to address the contingency plan requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.10 The guidance, in Attachment A, suggested that states develop a contingency plan if, based on the most recent three calendar years of data, an area within the state had monitored and recorded a 24-hour PM2.5 level greater than 140.4 mg/m3. For states that were to develop a contingency plan, the guidance recommended states set priority and emergency levels consistent with requirements of 40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153. The EPA notes that section 51.153 requires periodic reevaluation of priority classifications based on the three most recent years of air quality data.

    10 Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Guidance on SIP Elements Required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standards (NAAQS), at p. 6-7 (Sep. 25, 2009).

    South Dakota has recorded no levels of ambient air concentrations in the three most recent complete calendar years—2013, 2014, and 2015—that exceed the 2009 guidance memorandum.11 Furthermore, South Dakota's is classified as Priority III for SO2 and is therefore not required to submit emergency episode contingency plans for SO2.

    11 Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Guidance on SIP Elements Required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standards (NAAQS), at p. 6-7 (Sep. 25, 2009).

    Revisions to the South Dakota Air Quality Episodes rules ARSD 74:36:03:01 “Air pollution emergency episode” and ARSD 74:36:03:02 “Episode emergency contingency plan” were most recently approved on June 27, 2014 (79 FR 36425). We find that South Dakota's air pollution emergency rules include PM2.5, and SO2; establish stages of episode criteria; provide for public announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to exist; and specify emission control actions to be taken at each episode stage, consistent with the EPA emergency episode SIP requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51 subpart H (prevention of air pollution emergency episode) for PM2.5 and SO2. The SIP therefore meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G). Based on the above analysis, we propose approval of South Dakota's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan: (i) “[f]rom time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard[;] and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially inadequate to attain the [NAAQS] which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under this [Act].”

    South Dakota's statutory provision at SDCL 34A-1-6 gives DENR sufficient authority to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to approve South Dakota's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).

    10. Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each SIP “meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection).”

    The State has demonstrated it has the authority and rules in place through its certifications (contained within this docket) to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 121. Furthermore, the EPA previously addressed the requirements of CAA section 127 for the South Dakota SIP and determined public notification requirements are appropriate (45 FR 58525, Sept. 4, 1980).

    As previously discussed, the State has a SIP-approved PSD program that incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21. The EPA has further evaluated South Dakota's SIP approved PSD program in this proposed action under element (C) and determined the State has satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as previously noted. Therefore, the State has also satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(J).

    Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, the EPA recognizes states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.

    Based on the above analysis, we propose to approve the South Dakota SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP to provide for: (i) “the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a [NAAQS]; and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.”

    South Dakota's PSD program incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21, including the provision at 40 CFR 52.21(l)(1) requiring that estimates of ambient air concentrations be based on applicable air quality models specified in Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, and the provision at 40 CFR 52.21(l)(2) requiring that modification or substitution of a model specified in Appendix W must be approved by the Administrator.

    Additionally, SDLC section 34A-1-1, 34A-1-10, and 1-40-31 provide the Department with the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with the EPA and provide the EPA with public records, such as air quality modeling. As a result, the SIP provides for such air quality modeling as the Administrator has prescribed. Therefore, we propose to approve the South Dakota SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    12. Permitting Fees

    Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires “the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this [Act], a fee sufficient to cover[:] (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit[;] and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under [title] V.”

    The funding sources used for the PSD permit reviews conducted by South Dakota derive from EPA grant and matching State general funds.12 In light of the State's experience that funding from grants and general funds has been sufficient to operate a successful PSD program, it is reasonable that the PSD permit applicants are not charged any permit-specific fees.

    12See Email from Brian Gustafson “Question Regarding Permitting Fees for SD iSIP Action” July 24, 2014, available within docket.

    We also note that all the State SIPs we are proposing to approve in this action cite the regulation that provides for collection of permitting fees under the State's EPA-approved title V permit program (ARSD 74:37:01), which we approved and became effective February 28, 1996 (61 FR 2720, Jan. 29, 1996). Therefore, based on the State's experience in relying on the grant and general funds for PSD permits, and the use of title V fees to implement and enforce PSD permits once they are incorporated into title V permits, we propose to approve the submissions as supplemented by the State for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    13. Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to “provide for consultation and participation [in SIP development] by local political subdivisions affected by [the SIP].”

    The statutory provisions cited in South Dakota's SIP submittals (SDCL section 34-A-1 and 34A-1-10 Environmental Protection, contained within this docket) provide the South Dakota DENR with the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with agencies of the state, local governments, industries, other states, interstate or inter-local agencies, the federal government, and with interested persons or groups and therefore meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M). We propose to approve South Dakota's SIP as meeting these requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    VII. What action is the EPA taking?

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure elements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we propose no action on are reflected in Table 2. A comprehensive summary of infrastructure elements organized by the EPA's proposed rule action are provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

    Table 1—List of South Dakota Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Proposing To Approve Proposed for approval December 20, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). January 25, 2016 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). Table 2—List of South Dakota Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Proposing To Take no action On Proposed for no action
  • (Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action.)
  • December 20, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2. January 25, 2016 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
    VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Suzanne J. Bohan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11573 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0202; FRL-9962-40-Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans (Negative Declarations) for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Revisions to State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: New Hampshire AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve: Negative declarations for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators for the State of Connecticut, the State of New Hampshire, the State of Rhode Island, and the State of Vermont; negative declarations for hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators for the State of Rhode Island; and revisions to the state plan for existing large and small municipal waste combustors for the State of New Hampshire. This action is being made in accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0202 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Bird, Air Permits, Toxics, & Indoor Programs Unit, Air Programs Branch, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Mail Code: OEP05-2, Boston, MA 02109-0287. Telephone: 617-918-1584. Fax: 617-918-0668. Email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State Plan revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 20, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10917 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 423 [EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819; FRL-9962-51-OW] RIN 2040-AF76 Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to administrative petitions for reconsideration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to postpone certain compliance dates in the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric point source category under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2015. Specifically, EPA proposes to postpone the compliance dates for the new, and more stringent, best available technology economically achievable (“BAT”) effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for each of the following wastestreams: Fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization (“FGD”) wastewater, flue gas mercury control wastewater, and gasification wastewater. These compliance dates would be postponed until EPA completes reconsideration of the 2015 Rule.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before July 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Ronald Jordan, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Engineering and Analysis Division; telephone number: (202) 564-1003; email address: [email protected]

    Electronic copies of this document and related materials are available on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines-2015-final-rule. Copies of this proposed rule are also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Discussion of Postponement

    On November 3, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule amending 40 CFR part 423, the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category, under Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361). The amendments addressed and contained limitations and standards on various wastestreams at steam electric power plants: Fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas mercury control wastewater, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, gasification wastewater, and combustion residual leachate. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as the “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category” (“Rule”). For further information on the Rule, see 80 FR 67838 (Nov. 3, 2015).

    EPA received seven petitions for review of the Rule. The United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order on December 8, 2015, consolidating all of the petitions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Southwestern Electric Power Co., et al. v. EPA, No. 15-60821.

    In a letter dated March 24, 2017, the Utility Water Act Group (“UWAG”) 1 submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Rule and requested that EPA suspend the Rule's approaching deadlines. UWAG supplemented its petition with additional information in a letter dated April 13, 2017. In a letter dated April 5, 2017, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy sent EPA a second petition for reconsideration of the Rule, which expressly supports the UWAG's petition and raises issues that SBA considers are pertinent to small businesses. The petitions raise wide-ranging and sweeping objections to the Rule.2 Among other things, the UWAG petition points to new data, claiming that plants burning subbituminous and bituminous coal cannot comply with the rule's limitations and standards for FGD wastewater through use of EPA's model technology. EPA wishes to review these data. UWAG also requested that EPA suspend or delay the “rule's fast-approaching compliance deadlines while EPA works to reconsider and revise, as appropriate, the substantive requirements of the current rule.”

    1 According to the petition, UWAG is a voluntary, ad hoc, unincorporated group of 163 individual energy companies and three national trade associations of energy companies: Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the American Public Power Association.

    2 A copy of each petition and the supplemental information is included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819.

    In an April 12, 2017 letter to those who submitted the reconsideration petitions, the Administrator announced his decision to reconsider the Rule (a copy of this letter is included in the docket for the rule). As explained in that letter, after considering the objections raised in the reconsideration petitions, the Administrator determined that it is appropriate and in the public interest to reconsider the Rule. On April 14, 2017, the EPA requested that the Fifth Circuit hold the case in abeyance while the Agency undertakes reconsideration. On April 24, 2017, the Fifth Circuit granted the motion and placed the case in abeyance.

    The earliest compliance date for the new, and more stringent, BAT effluent limitations and pretreatment standards is November 1, 2018, for each of the following wastestreams: Fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, FGD wastewater, flue gas mercury control wastewater, and gasification wastewater. As UWAG pointed out in its April 13, 2017 letter “a rule of this magnitude and complexity requires substantial time to come into compliance for multiple wastestreams. Detailed studies and planning, followed by large capital expenditures and subsequent installation and testing, are time-consuming.” Companies have been evaluating their compliance options and are reaching the point at which they will be committing funds, incurring costs, or commencing construction to install technologies. In light of these imminent planning and capital expenditures that facilities incurring costs under the Rule will need to undertake in order to meet the compliance deadlines for the new, more stringent limitations and standards in the Rule—which are as early as November 1, 2018, for direct dischargers and no later than November 1, 2018, for indirect dischargers—the Agency views that it is appropriate to postpone the compliance dates of the Rule that have not yet passed. See 80 FR 67838, 67863-67868 (Nov. 3, 2015) (discussion of costs of the rule). This will preserve the regulatory status quo with respect to wastestreams subject to the Rule's new, and more stringent, limitations and standards, while the reconsideration is underway. While EPA is not making any concession of error with respect to the rulemaking, the far-ranging issues contained in the reconsideration petitions warrant careful and considerate review of the rule, as well as relief from the certain deadlines under the Rule while EPA considers the issues raised by petitioners. The postponement of compliance dates through this action is intended as a temporary, stopgap measure to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of resources until EPA completes reconsideration of the 2015 rule. EPA solicits comments on whether this postponement should be for a specified period of time, for example, two years.

    In a separate action, EPA administratively postponed certain compliance dates in the rule pursuant to Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 705, which states that “[w]hen an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it pending judicial review.” Because Section 705 of the APA authorizes an Agency to postpone the effective date of an action pending judicial review, EPA is undertaking this notice-and-comment rulemaking to postpone certain compliance dates in the rule in the event that the litigation ends, and while the Agency is undertaking reconsideration. These compliance dates would be postponed until EPA promulgates a final rule specifying compliance dates.

    II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 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 as that term is defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this proposed rule is not subject to requirements of E.O. 12866 that apply to significant regulatory actions.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule 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 proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because EPA previously determined that the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by the requirements EPA is proposing to postpone do not present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    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

    This is a proposal to delay action, and it does not change the requirements of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards published in 2015. While the proposed postponement in compliance dates could delay the protection the 2015 rule would afford to all communities, including those impacted disproportionately by the pollutants in certain wastewater discharges, this action will not change any impacts of the 2015 rule when it is fully implemented. The EPA therefore believes it is more appropriate to consider the impact on minority and low-income populations in the context of possible substantive changes as part of any reconsideration of the 2015 rule.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 423

    Environmental protection, Electric power generation, Power plants, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: May 25, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator. Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 423—STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY 1. The authority citation for part 423 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 101; 301; 304(b), (c), (e), and (g); 306; 307; 308 and 501, Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251; 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), and (g); 1316; 1317; 1318 and 1361).

    2. Section 423.10 is amended by designating the undesignated paragraph as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 423.10 Applicability.

    (b) The compliance dates specified in §§ 423.13(g)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(i), and (k)(1)(i) and 423.16(e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) are postponed.

    3. Section 423.13 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
    § 423.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this part must achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT). For applicability of the requirements in §§ 423.13(g)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(i), and (k)(1)(i), see § 423.10(b).

    4. Section 423.16 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
    § 423.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) by July 1, 1984. For applicability of the requirements in §§ 423.16(e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), see § 423.10(b).

    [FR Doc. 2017-11221 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [MD Docket Nos. 17-134; FCC 17-62] Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2017 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) will revise its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order to recover an amount of $356,710,992 that Congress has required the Commission to collect for fiscal year 2017, as amended, provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees under and respectively, for annual “Mandatory Adjustments” and “Permitted Amendments” to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 22, 2017, and reply comments on or before July 7, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MD Docket No. 17-134, 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://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    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.

    Email: [email protected] Include MD Docket No. 15-121 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: 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 should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 17-62, MD Docket No. 17-134 adopted on May 22, 2017 and released on May 23, 2017. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via their Web site, http://www.bcpi.com, or call 1-800-378-3160. This document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio record, and braille). Persons with disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact the FCC by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    I. Procedural Matters A. Ex Parte Rules Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

    1. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FY 2017 NPRM) 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 list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and 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 section 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by section 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.

    B. Comment Filing Procedures

    2. Comments and Replies. 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: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies 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 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).

    3. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available free online, via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

    4. Accessibility Information. To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (“PDF”) at: http://www.fcc.gov.

    C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    5. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) is contained in this summary. Comments to the IRFA must be identified as responses to the IRFA and filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    6. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 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).

    II. Introduction

    7. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on the Commission's proposed regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2017. We propose to collect $356,710,992 in regulatory fees for FY 2017, as detailed in the proposed fee schedules attached in Table 4.

    III. Background

    8. The Commission is required by Congress to assess regulatory fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its appropriation.1 Regulatory fees, mandated by Congress, are collected “to recover the costs of . . . enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking activities, user information services, and international activities.” 2 Regulatory fees are to “be derived by determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing” these activities, “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . .” 3 Regulatory fees recover direct costs, such as salary and expenses; indirect costs, such as overhead functions; and support costs, such as rent, utilities, or equipment.4 Regulatory fees also cover the costs incurred in regulating entities that are statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees,5 entities whose regulatory fees are waived,6 and entities providing services for which we do not assess regulatory fees.

    1 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(B). The Commission collected $4.25 million above the required regulatory fee target goal in FY 2016, which the Commission deposited into the U.S. Treasury. The cumulative overcollection is $102.62 million as of September 30, 2016.

    2 47 U.S.C. 159(a).

    3 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).

    4Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11662, 11666, para. 11 (2004) (FY 2004 Report and Order).

    5 For example, governmental and nonprofit entities are exempt from regulatory fees under section 9(h). 47 U.S.C. 159(h); 47 CFR 1.1162.

    6 47 CFR 1.1166.

    9. Congress sets the amount the Commission must collect each year in the Commission's fiscal year appropriations. Section 9(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act) requires the Commission to collect fees sufficient to offset the amount appropriated.7 To calculate regulatory fees, the Commission allocates the total collection target across all regulatory fee categories. The allocation of fees to fee categories is based on the Commission's calculation of Full Time Employees (or FTEs) in each regulatory fee category.8 FTEs are classified as “direct” if the employee is in one of the four “core” bureaus; otherwise, that employee is considered an “indirect” FTE.9 The total FTEs for each fee category includes the direct FTEs associated with that category, plus a proportional allocation of indirect FTEs.10 The Commission then allocates the total amount to be collected among the various regulatory fee categories within each of the core bureaus. Each regulatee within a fee category pays its proportionate share based on an objective measure, e.g., revenues or number of subscribers.11

    7 47 U.S.C. 159(a)(2).

    8 One FTE is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually by a full time person (working a 40 hour workweek for a full year) assigned to the particular job, and subject to agency personnel staffing limitations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

    9 The core bureaus are the Wireline Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Media Bureau, and part of the International Bureau. The indirect FTEs are the employees from the following bureaus and offices: Enforcement Bureau, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, part of the International Bureau, Chairman and Commissioners' offices, Office of the Managing Director, Office of General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of Engineering and Technology, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, Office of Workplace Diversity, Office of Media Relations, and Office of Administrative Law Judges.

    10 The Commission observed in the FY 2013 Report and Order that “the high percentage of the indirect FTEs is indicative of the fact that many Commission activities and costs are not limited to a particular fee category and instead benefit the Commission as a whole.” See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2013, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 12351, 12357, para. 17 (2013) (FY 2013 Report and Order).

    11See Procedures for Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 8458, 8461 through 62, paras. 8 through 11 (2012) (FY 2012 NPRM).

    10. The Commission annually reviews the regulatory fee schedule, proposes changes to the schedule to reflect changes in the amount of its appropriation, and proposes increases or decreases to the schedule of regulatory fees.12 The Commission will make changes to the regulatory fee schedule “if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment to comply with the requirements” 13 of section 9(b)(1)(A) of the Act.14 The Commission may also add, delete, or reclassify services in the fee schedule to reflect additions, deletions, or changes in the nature of its services “as a consequence of Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in law.” 15

    12 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(B).

    13 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(2).

    14 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).

    15 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).

    11. As part of its annual review, the Commission regularly seeks to improve its regulatory fee analysis. For example, in the FY 2013 Report and Order, the Commission adopted updated FTE allocations to more accurately reflect the number of FTEs working on regulation and oversight of the regulatees in the various fee categories; 16 reallocated some FTEs from the International Bureau as indirect; 17 combined the UHF and VHF television stations into one regulatory fee category; 18 and added Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) to the cable television regulatory fee category.19 Subsequently, in the FY 2014 Report and Order, the Commission adopted a new regulatory fee subcategory for toll free numbers within the Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider (ITSP) 20 category; 21 increased the de minimis threshold to $500 for annual regulatory fee payors; 22 and eliminated several categories from the regulatory fee schedule.23 In the FY 2015 NPRM, the Commission adjusted regulatory fees for radio and television broadcasters, based on the type and class of service and on the population served; 24 adopted an increase in the regulatory fee for Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers in the subcategory within the cable television and IPTV regulatory fee category; 25 and adopted an across the board fee increase for the Commission's moving expenses.26

    16FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12354-58, paras. 10-20. The Commission now updates the FTE allocations annually. This was recommended in a report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2012. See GAO “Federal Communications Commission Regulatory Fee Process Needs to be Updated,” GAO-12-686 (August 2012) (GAO Report) at 36 (available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-686).

    17FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12355 through 58, paras. 13 through 20.

    18Id., 28 FCC Rcd at 12361 through 62, paras. 29 through 31.

    19Id., 28 FCC Rcd at 12362-63, paras. 32-33.

    20 The ITSP category includes interexchange carriers (IXCs), incumbent local exchange carriers, toll resellers, and other IXC service providers.

    21Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2014, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 10767, 10777 through 79, paras. 25 through 28 (2014) (FY 2014 Report and Order).

    22FY 2014 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 10774 through 76, paras. 18 through 21.

    23Id., 29 FCC Rcd at 10776-77, paras. 22 through 24.

    24Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2016, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 10339, 10350-51, paras. 31 through 33 (2016) (FY 2016 Report and Order).

    25FY 2016 Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10347-350, paras. 25-30.

    26Id., 31 FCC Rcd at 10341, para. 7.

    IV. Discussion

    12. The Commission proposes to collect $356,710,992 in regulatory fees for FY 2017,27 pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act.28 These regulatory fees are mandated by Congress and are collected “to recover the costs of . . . enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking activities, user information services, and international activities.” 29 We seek comment on the proposed regulatory fee schedule in Table 4.

    27See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Division E—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017, Title V—Independent Agencies, Public Law 115-31 (May 5, 2017), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/244/text. This provides the Commission with $356,710,992 for salaries and expenses, to be raised through section 9 regulatory fees, of which $16,866,992 is directed to be spent on completing the Commission's move and/or restacking.

    28 47 U.S.C. 159.

    29 47 U.S.C. 159(a).

    A. Allocating FTEs for Regulatory Fee Purposes

    13. Under section 9 of the Act, regulatory fees are to “be derived by determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing” these activities, “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . .” 30 As a general matter, we reasonably expect that the work of the FTEs in the core bureaus should remain focused on the industry segment regulated by each of those bureaus. The work of the FTEs in the indirect bureaus and offices benefits the Commission and the telecommunications industry and is not specifically focused on the licensees of a particular core bureau. Given the significant implications of reassignment of FTEs in our fee calculation, we make changes to FTE classifications only after performing considerable analysis and finding the clearest case for reassignment.31 For example, the Commission in the FY 2016 Report and Order declined to combine the regulatory fee categories for CMRS and ITSP categories, finding that doing so would not account for the substantial differences between the services in terms of regulatory oversight by the two bureaus.32

    30 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).

    31FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12357, para. 19. The Commission observed that the International Bureau was a “singular case” because the work of those FTEs “primarily benefits licensees regulated by other bureaus.” Id., 28 FCC Rcd at 12355, para. 14.

    32FY 2016 Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10346-47, para. 22.

    14. The Commission has 1,431 FTEs funded by regulatory fees, of which 424 are currently direct FTEs.33 Of these, 167 would be allocated to Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees, 141 would be allocated to Media Bureau regulatees, 92 would be allocated to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees, and 24 would be allocated to International Bureau regulatees.34 As explained below, we propose to reallocate 38 FTEs associated with Universal Service Fund work as indirect and to reallocate four FTEs that work on wireless numbering issues to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. As a result of this proposed reallocation, we project that we would collect approximately 32.38 percent of regulatory fees (or $115.5 million) from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees, 36.53 percent of regulatory fees (or $130.3 million) from Media Bureau regulatees, 24.87 percent of regulatory fees (or $88.7 million) from Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees, and 6.22 percent of regulatory fees (or $22.2 million) from International Bureau regulatees.

    33 All numbers in this paragraph are for the current fiscal year (starting October 1, 2016) and exclude auction-funded FTEs.

    34 This includes space stations, earth stations, and submarine cable, terrestrial, and satellite international bearer circuits (IBCs).

    1. Reallocating FTEs Associated With the Universal Service Fund

    15. We believe that continuing changes to the USF regulatory landscape requires us to reexamine the appropriateness of treating Universal Service Fund FTEs as direct FTEs. To start, we estimate that there are approximately 51 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau, including the bureau front office, devoted to the Universal Service Fund, with 13 of those FTEs devoted to the high-cost program. We also estimate that there are approximately 3 FTEs in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, including the bureau front office, devoted to implementing the Mobility Fund, a universal service high-cost support mechanism devoted exclusively to mobile services.35 We note that other FTEs throughout the Commission working on universal service issues are assigned as indirect FTEs. This includes the many FTEs working on universal service issues in the Enforcement Bureau, the Office of the Managing Director, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of the General Counsel.

    35See Connect America Fund, et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011).

    16. We propose to “adjust[ ]” the allocation of these direct FTEs “to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . ” 36 Specifically, we propose to reallocate the 38 FTEs associated with the non-high-cost programs of the Universal Service Fund as indirect. First, we note that contributions to the Universal Service Fund are not only required from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees but every provider using any technology that has end-user interstate telecommunications revenue is required to contribute to the Universal Service Fund.37 Second, we note that three of the distribution programs—E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Healthcare—tie funding eligibility to the beneficiary, whether it be a school, a library, a low-income individual or family, or a rural healthcare provider. None of these beneficiaries are Commission regulatees. Third, we note that wireless carriers now serve a substantial, if not majority, of Lifeline subscribers, and satellite operators, Wi-Fi network installers, and fiber builders may all receive funding through the E-Rate and Rural Healthcare programs. Fourth, we note that treating these FTEs as indirect would be more consistent with how FTEs working on universal service issues are treated elsewhere in the Commission. We seek comment on this proposal. We specifically seek comment on whether the statute requires us to impose regulatory fees on the regulatees of a single bureau even though the benefits provided by those FTEs accrue to regulatees of other bureaus as well as non-regulatees.

    36 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).

    37 47 CFR 54.706(a).

    17. We also seek comment on alternatives. Although the high-cost program has historically been tied to Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees, the Commission's recent actions such as the adoption of the Mobility Fund Phase II and the Connect America Fund Phase II reverse auctions open eligibility to many other providers. Do these recent changes justify reallocating the 13 Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs and three Wireless Telecommunications Bureau FTEs as indirect? Or should any such reallocation await the full implementation of these reverse auctions? Alternatively, should some portion of the 38 FTEs that work on non-high-cost programs of the Universal Service Fund not be reallocated as indirect? If so, what portion?

    18. Commenters should provide legal and policy reasoning in support or opposition to the proposal and to the alternatives. We note that the Commission has said that it “would be inconsistent with section 9 to delay reallocating . . . FTEs, where the reallocation is clearly warranted, while we engage in painstaking examinations of less clear and more factually complex situations in other bureaus.” 38 We seek comment on whether reallocation is clearly warranted here, and we ask commenters to address the impact any change in the allocation of FTEs will have on payors in other fee categories as well as the Commission's goal of ensuring that regulatory fees are administrable and sustainable.39

    38FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12357-58, paras. 19 through 20.

    39Id., 28 FCC Rcd at 12354, para 9.

    2. Reallocating FTEs Associated With Numbering

    19. We estimate that 7-8 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau work on numbering issues. We propose to “adjust[ ]” the allocation of these direct FTEs “to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . .” 40 Specifically, we estimate approximately half of the benefit of the work of these FTEs accrue to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees, who control 44.02 percent of assigned numbers under the North American Numbering Plan 41 and 73.01 percent of voice subscriptions.42 We therefore propose to reallocate four of the Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs that work on numbering issues to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as direct FTEs for regulatory fee purposes. We seek comment on this proposal. We specifically seek comment on whether the statute requires us to impose regulatory fees on the regulatees of a single bureau even though the benefits provided by those FTEs accrue to regulatees of another bureau.

    40 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).

    41 Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States NRUF Data as of June 30, 2010 at 12 Table 1 (2013).

    42 Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, Voice Telephone Services: Status as of December 31, 2015 at 2 Figure 1 (2016).

    20. Commenters should provide legal and policy reasoning in support or opposition to the proposal, as well as whether the Commission should consider any alternatives. We note that the Commission has said that it “would be inconsistent with section 9 to delay reallocating . . . FTEs, where the reallocation is clearly warranted, while we engage in painstaking examinations of less clear and more factually complex situations in other bureaus.” 43 We seek comment on whether reallocation is clearly warranted here, and we ask commenters to address the impact any change in the allocation of FTEs will have on payors in these two fee categories as well as the Commission's goal of ensuring that regulatory fees are administrable and sustainable.44

    43FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12357-58, paras. 19 through 20.

    44Id., 28 FCC Rcd at 12354, para 9.

    B. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Regulatory Fees

    21. The proposed fee schedule includes an updated regulatory fee for DBS, a subcategory in the cable television and IPTV category.45 In 2015, the Commission adopted an initial regulatory fee for DBS, as a subcategory in the cable television and IPTV category, of 12 cents per year per subscriber, or one cent per month.46 At that time, the Commission committed to updating the regulatory fee rate for FY 2016, as necessary for ensuring an appropriate level of regulatory parity with cable television and IPTV and considering the Media Bureau resources dedicated to this subcategory.47 Such examination is consistent with a report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2012, which observed it is important for the Commission to “regularly update analyses to ensure that fees are set based on relevant information.” 48

    45 DBS also pays a regulatory fee per operational station in geostationary orbit.

    46Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2015, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 10268, 10276-77, paras. 19 through 20 (2015) (FY 2015 Report and Order).

    47FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10277, para. 20.

    48 GAO Report at 12, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-686.

    22. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at the subscriber's location. The two DBS providers, AT&T and DISH Network, are multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs).49 When the Commission adopted this regulatory fee subcategory, it recognized numerous recent regulatory developments increased Media Bureau FTE activity involving regulation and oversight of MVPDs, including DBS providers.50 During the FY 2016 regulatory fee proceeding, commenters representing the cable television industry observed that the Media Bureau FTEs increasingly devote time to issues involving the entire MVPD industry, and that DBS, cable television, and IPTV all receive oversight and regulation as a result of the work of the Media Bureau FTEs on MVPD issues.51 Recognizing this, in the FY 2016 Report and Order, the Commission increased the regulatory fee for DBS providers to 24 cents, plus an across-the-board increase of three cents for the Commission's moving expenses, for a total of 27 cents per subscriber, per year.52 The increase was adopted in response to the increase in DBS oversight and regulation due to Media Bureau rulemakings regarding MVPD issues.53 Nevertheless, the FY 2016 fee of 27 cents per subscriber adopted last year, increased from 12 cents, was still significantly below parity with the cable television/IPTV rate of $1.00 per year.54

    49 MVPD is defined in section 602(13) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 522(13).

    50FY 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5367 through 68, para. 31. See, e.g., Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 2463 (2016); Amendment to the Commission's Rules Concerning Market Modification, Implementation of Section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 10406 (2015); Implementation of Section 103 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 10327 (2015); Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement, Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17222 (2011) (CALM Act Report and Order).

    51 American Cable Association (ACA) Comments at 3-11 (filed in MD Docket No. 16-166); National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) Reply Comments at 3-7 (filed in MD Docket No. 16-166).

    52FY 2016 Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10348 through 49, para. 26.

    53Id., 31 FCC Rcd at 10348 through 49, para. 26. Commenters representing the cable industry continue to observe that “[w]hile cable, IPTV, and DBS providers are not regulated identically, they offer similar multichannel video services, participate in the same proceedings at the same level in terms of the number of filings and meetings, and benefit in a similar fashion from Media Bureau regulation of MVPDs.” See Letter from Barbara Esbin, Cinnamon Mueller, attorney for ACA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 16, 2016) (ACA ex parte) at 1.

    54 The agency is not required to calculate its costs with “scientific precision.” Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n v. United States, 777 F.2d 722, 736 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Reasonable approximations will suffice. Id.; National Cable Television Ass'n v. FCC, 554 F.2d 1094, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

    23. Based on our updated analysis of the cable television/IPTV category, we find Media Bureau resources devoted to MVPD proceedings, including DBS,55 supports revising the DBS regulatory fee rate again. Specifically, we propose a regulatory fee rate of 36 cents per subscriber per year, plus two cents due to the increase in the Commission's budget for moving expenses, for a total of 38 cents per subscriber per year for FY 2017, as set forth in the proposed fee schedule in Table 4. This proposed incremental increase of approximately one cent per subscriber per month would result in bringing the DBS industry regulatory fees closer to those for cable television/IPTV. We seek comment on this proposal.

    55See, e.g., Expanding Consumers' Video Navigation Choices, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 1544 (2016); Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming, Notice of Inquiry, 31 FCC Rcd 1610 (2016); Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 526 (2016); Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Market Modification; Implementation of Section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 10406 (2015).

    C. Broadcaster Regulatory Fees

    24. In the FY 2016 NPRM, the Commission proposed to include a higher population row in the table for AM and FM broadcasters,56 to standardize the incremental increase in fees,57 and to better assess fees based on the type and class of service.58 The Commission also proposed to adjust the television broadcasters table so that Top 10 market stations paid approximately twice what stations in markets 26-50 paid.59 In response to the FY 2016 NPRM, several commenters contended that the proposed regulatory fees were too burdensome for small independent stations.60 After reviewing the record, including the comments filed by the industry identifying the economic hardship faced by small independent radio stations, the Commission adopted a revised version of the proposed table and reduced the regulatory fees in the two lowest population tiers for AM and FM broadcasters from the rates proposed in the FY 2016 Report and Order. 61

    56FY 2016 NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 5762 through 63, para. 12. The Commission also sought comment on this issue in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached to the FY 2015 Report and Order. See FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10280, para. 28.

    57Id. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on standardizing the incremental increase in fees as radio broadcasters increase the population they serve, such as by requiring that fee adjustments between tiers monotonically increase as the population served increases. Id.

    58Id.

    59FY 2016 NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 5763 through 64, para. 13. The Commission also sought comment on this issue in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached to the FY 2015 Report and Order. See FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10280 through 81, para. 29.

    60FY 2016 Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10351, para. 32.

    61Id., 31 FCC Rcd at 10351, para. 33.

    25. We seek comment on further adjusting the regulatory fees for FY 2017. The following chart proposes regulatory fees for AM and FM broadcasters, with revised ratios so that the difference between each tier is proportional. The second chart, for illustrative purposes, has the regulatory fees with the ratios used in the proposal for FY 2016. The second chart does not include the reduction for the two lowest tiers adopted in FY 2016. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should also discuss whether the regulatory fees should be reduced further for the AM and FM broadcasters in the two lowest tiers.

    Table 1—Proposed FY 2017 Radio Station Regulatory Fees Proposed FY 2017 radio station regulatory fees
  • This uses the proposed ratios for FY 2017
  • Population served AM Class A
  • ($)
  • AM Class B
  • ($)
  • AM Class C
  • ($)
  • AM Class D
  • ($)
  • FM Classes
  • A, B1 & C3
  • ($)
  • FM Classes
  • B, C, C0,
  • C1 & C2
  • ($)
  • ≤25,000 $1,050 $750 $650 $715 $1,150 $1,300 25,001-75,000 1,575 1,125 975 1,075 1,725 1,950 75,001-150,000 2,375 1,700 1,475 1,600 2,600 2,925 150,001-500,000 3,550 2,525 2,200 2,425 3,875 4,400 500,001-1,200,000 5,325 3,800 3,300 3,625 5,825 6,575 1,200,001-3,000,000 7,975 5,700 4,950 5,425 8,750 9,875 3,000,001-6,000,000 11,950 8,550 7,400 8,150 13,100 14,800 >6,000,000 17,950 12,825 11,100 12,225 19,650 22,225
    Table 2—FY 2017 Radio Station Regulatory Fees Based on FY 2016 Ratios FY 2017 Radio station regulatory fees, based on proposed FY 2016 fees
  • This chart uses the proposed ratios in FY 2016
  • Population served AM Class A
  • ($)
  • AM Class B
  • ($)
  • AM Class C
  • ($)
  • AM Class D
  • ($)
  • FM Classes
  • A, B1 & C3
  • ($)
  • FM Classes
  • B, C, C0,
  • C1 & C2
  • ($)
  • ≤25,000 $1,125 $825 $710 $780 $1,250 $1,425 25,001-75,000 1,700 1,250 1,075 1,175 1,875 2,150 75,001-150,000 2,250 1,650 1,425 1,550 2,500 2,850 150,001-500,000 3,375 2,475 2,125 2,350 3,750 4,275 500,001-1,200,000 5,625 4,125 3,550 3,900 6,250 7,125 1,200,001-3,000,000 8,450 6,200 5,325 5,850 9,375 10,700 3,000,001-6,000,000 11,250 8,250 7,100 7,800 12,500 14,250 >6,000,000 14,075 10,325 8,875 9,750 15,625 17,825
    D. Broadcast Television Satellites

    26. Broadcast television satellite stations pay a lower regulatory fee than standalone, full-service broadcast television stations, and are designated as such pursuant to note 5 to section 73.3555 of the Commission's rules.62 In 1995, the Commission made a permissive amendment to the regulatory fees schedule to permit television satellite stations that had received authorization to retransmit programming of the primary station to pay a fee separate from the fee for fully operational television stations. This amount is based upon the fee passed by the House of Representatives for television satellite stations for FY 1994.63 Other full-service television licensees remain subject to the regulatory fee payment required for the class of station and market. Of note, since 1995, we have consistently defined, and thereby limited, a television satellite station as one commonly owned, authorized under note 5 of section 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, and also shown as such in the Television and Cable Factbook. Periodically, the Television and Cable Factbook includes information concerning satellite status that is inconsistent with our records.

    62E.g., for FY 2016, satellite television was assessed $1,750, whereas digital broadcast UHF and VHF TV was assessed $5,000 to $60,675, depending on the market size.

    63Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1995, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13512, 13534-35, para. 60 (1995). See also Implementation of Section 9 of the Communications Act, Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for the 1994 Fiscal Year, Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5333, para. 82 (1994) (“Section 9(g)'s fee schedule establishes specific fees for commercial television stations. These fees are to be assessed against a licensee solely on the basis of the market in which the station operates. The text of the schedule makes no distinction between commercial stations that are fully operational and those that are satellite stations.”).

    27. There is a standalone full-service station usually within the same market that serves as the “parent” to the satellite station that could not be commonly owned or controlled with the satellite, but for such a waiver. Section 76.55(e)(2) of the Commission's rules specifies that a commercial broadcast television station's market is its Designated Market Area (DMA), which reflects viewing patterns, as determined by Nielsen Media Research and published in its Nielsen Station Index Directory and Nielsen Station Index US Television Household Estimates or any successor publications.64 We are unaware of the existence of any reliable published source that can identify which television stations are serving small markets at the fringe of larger DMA's.65 In a particular situation, the licensee of a broadcast television satellite station that is not carried by cable, satellite, or alternate methods, may have signal contours that cover the fringes of a DMA (generally, rural communities), whereas other full-service TV stations have greater over-the-air coverage of the DMA market. As a result, advertisers may devote more commercial spending to other full-service TV stations rather than to the more limited broadcast television satellite stations in the same DMA market. Such broadcast television satellite stations may originate their own programming, multicast their broadcasts, and with cable or satellite carriage, provide programming to the entire DMA market. For purposes of paying regulatory fees, the Commission identifies those stations that it deems to be broadcast satellite television stations based on Consolidated Data Base System (CDBS) and other Media Bureau data. However, some stations claim to operate as “satellites,” and pay a lower regulatory fee ($1,750 in FY 2016), although they have not been officially granted satellite status by the Commission. Because satellite status may be derived only as a result of Commission action, only stations granted such status by the Commission may pay the satellite television regulatory fee; other stations that claim such status must pay the fee for a full-service station. Attached in Appendix E is a list of the bona fide licensed broadcast satellite television stations, according to the Media Bureau records. This list is generated from the Commission's CDBS and other information provided to the Media Bureau. We invite comment on the accuracy of this list.

    64 47 CFR 76.55(e)(2); Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2000, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 14478, 14492, para. 34 (2000) (FY 2000 Report and Order) (“Fees for television stations are based on market size as determined by Nielsen. This is the only consistent source the Commission has for determining which market a station serves.”). See also Amendment to the Commission's Rules Concerning Market Modification, 30 FCC Rcd 10406, para. 6, n. 19 (2015) (“The Nielsen Company delineates television markets by assigning each U.S. county (except for certain counties in Alaska) to one market based on measured viewing patterns both off-air and via MVPD distribution.”); Designated Market Areas: Report to Congress, 31 FCC Rcd 5463, 5465 through 66, para. 6 (2015).

    65FY 2000 Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 14478, 14492, para. 34 (Commission rejected commenter's “argu[ment] that small television stations located near large designated market areas (DMA) are assessed disproportionately high fees because the A.C. Nielsen ratings include them in the DMA but they do not serve households in the DMA. Fees for television stations are based on market size as determined by Nielsen. This is the only consistent source the Commission has for determining which market a station serves.”).

    28. Recognizing that the Commission permitted a lesser fee for television satellite stations, we seek comment on whether we should increase the regulatory fees for broadcast satellite television stations to ensure that all television broadcasters are paying an appropriate regulatory fee based on Media Bureau FTE oversight and regulation. The circumstances that existed in 1994 when the Commission explained that it would permit consideration of a reduced fee in very limited circumstances have changed.66 As it relates to television satellite stations, should the satellite regulatory fee be increased to a higher percentage of standalone full-service broadcast television stations for “remaining markets”? In particular, we seek comment on whether the fee for broadcast television satellite stations should be increased to 50 or 75 percent of the regulatory fee for remaining markets for FY 2017 applicable if the station were not a broadcast satellite station, but a full-service standalone broadcast station. Commenters supporting an increase in the broadcast satellite television fee should explain why the fee should be closer to the regular standalone full-service broadcast television fee.

    66See Implementation of section 9 of the Communications Act and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees of the 1994 Fiscal Year, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12759, 12763, para. 21 (1995) (Applicants considered for relief “were generally UHF stations . . . lack[ing] network affiliations . . . located outside of the principal city's metropolitan area and do not provide a Grade B signal to a substantial portion of the market's metropolitan areas. Often these stations are not carried by cable systems serving the principal metropolitan areas.”); Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1996, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18774, 18786, para. 32 (1966) (“We . . .rely on Nielsen's DMA market rankings . . . Nielsen data is generally accepted throughout the industry and will be updated and published annually . . . We will consider the equities concerning the fees of licensees that change markets on a case-by-case basis, upon request, and, where a licensee demonstrates that it does not serve its assigned market, we will consider reducing the assigned fees to a more equitable level, based upon the area actually served by the licensee.”).

    E. International Bearer Circuits

    29. Historically, regulatory fees for international bearer circuits (IBCs) have been paid by facilities-based common carriers based on the number of active international bearer circuits they have in a transmission facility used to provide service to specified types of entities—specifically, by facilities-based common carriers that have active international bearer circuits in any transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier, which includes active circuits to themselves or to their affiliates.67 In 2009, the Commission revised this methodology by allocating submarine IBC costs among service providers in an equitable and competitively neutral manner, without distinguishing between common carriers and non-common carriers, and assessing a flat per cable landing license fee for all submarine cable systems.68 It nonetheless declined to simplify terrestrial and satellite IBCs at that time because of the “complexity of the legal, policy and equity issues involved.” 69 In the FY 2016 NPRM, the Commission revisited the disparate treatment of terrestrial and satellite IBCs vis-à-vis submarine IBCs,70 but decided in the FY 2016 Report and Order, that the record was insufficient to change the fee methodology at that time.71

    67Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Second Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4208, 4211, para. 4 (2009) (Subcable Order).

    68Subcable Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 4214-16, paras. 13-17.

    69Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2009, Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 10301, 10306 through 07, paras. 16 through 17 (2009).

    70FY 2016 NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 5764 through 65, paras. 15 through 16.

    71FY 2016 Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10343, para. 11.

    30. The international services marketplace has continued to evolve and we seek comment on how to update and improve our regulatory fee assessment for terrestrial and satellite IBCs to reflect these changes.72 We seek comment on how to make our fee assessment more efficient, equitable, and less burdensome. In particular, we seek comment on adopting a flat, per-provider fee similar to how we treat submarine cable regulatory fees, with a tiered regulatory fee methodology for terrestrial IBCs based on capacity. Similar to the regulatory fee treatment of submarine cable IBCs, under this proposal, terrestrial and satellite IBCs would be treated the same regardless of whether they are offered on a common-carrier or non-common-carrier basis. We seek comment on this proposal and how to divide the terrestrial IBCs into categories based on capacity.

    72 The Commission has a pending proceeding that seeks comment on the federal need for the international services reporting requirements set forth in section 43.62 of the Commission's rules. Section 43.62 Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Services; 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, IB Docket Nos. 16 through 131 and 17 through 55, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 2606 (2017). Relevant to this proceeding, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are ways to further streamline the Circuit Capacity Reports, which require providers of international telecommunications services to file annual reports identifying the submarine cable, satellite, and terrestrial capacity between the United States and foreign points. As noted below, we rely on the reporting requirements for terrestrial, satellite, and submarine cable capacity data to administer the annual regulatory fees established in section 9 of the Act. See infra at Appendix C; see 47 CFR 43.62(a)(1).

    31. Level 3 states that non-common carrier terrestrial IBCs should not be exempt from regulatory fees, as it finds the practice to be administratively burdensome, not equitable or competitively neutral, and a disincentive to compliance with the Commission's regulatory fee rules.73 Level 3, for example, states that it “spends dozens of person hours each year polling multiple systems to identify international terrestrial facilities in service, generating reports of the circuits that have been sold over those facilities, and identifying whether any of the circuits were sold on a non-common carrier basis.” 74 Level 3 asserts that the disparate treatment of common carrier and non-common carrier circuits is neither equitable nor competitively neutral as “[p]roviders that offer international terrestrial service on a common carrier basis are at a significant disadvantage vis a vis providers that characterize their service as non-common carrier.” 75 Level 3 states that “[c]arriers currently have a strong incentive to characterize circuits as non-common carrier circuits in order to reduce their regulatory fee burden.” 76 According to Level 3, a flat fee will improve compliance with the Commission's regulatory fee requirements 77 and “a flat-fee system will remove incentives for providers to not deploy terrestrial IBCs, or to sell international capacity over submarine cable systems instead of terrestrial IBCs.” 78 We seek comment on these arguments and whether we should harmonize the regulatory treatment of common carrier and non-common carrier terrestrial circuits.

    73 Level 3 Comments, MD Docket No. 16-166, at 5.

    74Id. at 5.

    75Id. at 6 (stating that “the fact that non-common carrier circuits are `unregulated' is not relevant to the Commission's authority to collect regulatory fees on those circuits. All terrestrial IBCs are `telecommunications' subject to the Commissions' jurisdiction, and benefit from the Commissions' `international activities,' including cross-border coordination with Canada and Mexico”).

    76Id. at 5.

    77Id. at 5.

    78Id. at 4.

    32. We also seek comment on whether we should make changes to the IBC fees for satellite circuits. The number of satellite IBCs are relatively small as compared to terrestrial IBCs.79 We also note that in addition to being assessed regulatory fees on their common carrier and non-common carrier circuits, earth station, geostationary orbit space station, and non-geostationary orbit space station licensees pay separate regulatory fees for their facilities that are licensed and operational.80 We seek comment on whether there is a basis to eliminate the IBC regulatory fee for satellite providers of international communications. If we retain the IBC regulatory fees for satellite circuits, should we adopt the methodology discussed herein for assessing the number of active circuits (either only assessing fees on systems active as of December 31 of the prior year, or assessing fees on IBCs that were active at any point during the preceding calendar year)? If we adopt the proposal for a flat-fee methodology, should we apply it to satellite circuits as well as terrestrial circuits? Are there any other steps we should take to harmonize our regulatory fee treatment of terrestrial and satellite IBCs?

    79 For example, for data as of December 31, 2014, there were a total of 21,911,703 circuit units (64 kbps) with terrestrial circuits accounting for 99.63 percent (21,830,546) while satellite accounted for only 0.37 percent (81,157). FCC, International Bureau, 2014 U.S. International Circuit Capacity Report at 3 (IB 2016), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-337257A2.pdf.

    80See infra para. 39; FY 2016 Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10356, para. 42.

    33. We also seek comment on whether we should continue to assess regulatory fees based on IBCs that were active as of December 31 of the prior year.81 Commenters should discuss whether instead we should assess regulatory fees based on IBCs that were active at any point during the preceding calendar year.82

    81 47 CFR 43.62(a)(1); see infra at para. 30.

    82 We recognize that this could require modification of section 43.62(a)(1) of our rules and any successor rules. 47 CFR 43.62(a)(1).

    34. Finally, we tentatively conclude that adding non-common carrier international bearer circuits to the regulatory fee schedule would be a permitted amendment as defined in section 9(b)(3) of the Act,83 and pursuant to section 9(b)(4)(B) must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it would become effective.84

    83 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).

    84 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(4)(B).

    F. Revising the De Minimis Threshold and Eliminating Regulatory Fee Categories

    35. Under the Commission's current de minimis rule for regulatory fee payments, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its regulatory fee liabilities for annual regulatory fees is $500 or less for the fiscal year.85 The Commission increased the de minimis threshold from $10 to $500 in the FY 2014 Report and Order. 86 The higher threshold reflected the estimated costs of collecting an unpaid regulatory fee, i.e., at least $350 in direct costs, and the benefits to these entities of a higher de minimis threshold. The Commission's estimate of approximately $350 excluded overhead or other costs involved in regulatory fee collection.87 In addition, the Commission observed that setting the de minimis threshold at $500 was unlikely to reduce fee collections to an amount below the full amount of the Commission's annual appropriation.88

    85FY 2014 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 10774-76, paras. 18 through 21.

    86Id.

    87Id., 29 FCC Rcd at 10775, para. 20 & n. 62.

    88Id.

    36. In the FY 2014 regulatory fee proceeding, commenters argued the threshold should be increased to $750 or $1,000.89 For example, ACA suggested that the Commission adopt a threshold of 1000 or fewer subscribers for cable operators and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) argued that the Commission should adopt a de minimis threshold of $750 or $1,000 in order to provide relief for smaller entities.90 These commenters explained that a higher de minimis threshold may contribute to the difference between a small operator staying in business or closing operations.91 NAB also observed that a higher de minimis threshold would allow stations in smaller markets to devote more resources to improved programming and signal quality.92 The Commission adopted a new threshold of $500 for annual regulatory fee and committed to further monitor the de minimis threshold and consider whether to increase the threshold or revise on some other basis.93

    89Id.

    90Id.

    91Id., 29 FCC Rcd at 10774 through 75, para. 19.

    92Id.

    93Id., 29 FCC Rcd at 10775, para. 20.

    37. Consistent with this commitment, we seek comment on increasing the de minimis threshold to $1,000 to improve the cost effectiveness of the Commission's collection of regulatory fees and to provide regulatory fee relief to smaller entities, particularly those that have little Commission regulation or oversight.94 As we explained in the FY 2014 Report and Order, smaller entities with limited funds are less likely to be able to budget for regulatory fees on a timely basis and therefore may incur late fees and consequently use more Commission resources for fee collection.95 The administrative burden on small regulatees, and the Commission's operational costs associated with processing and collecting these smaller fees, likely outweigh the benefits of such payments. For example, payors between $500 and $1,000 account for less than one percent of all regulatory fee payments. In addition, the cost of researching, creating, and sending a bill to a non-payer, and completing all follow-up discussion and correspondence, totals more than $350. Added to this cost is the overhead and the costs of administering the regulatory fee program.96 We seek comment on whether it makes sense to incur upwards of $350 in administrative costs to collect not even that much in regulatory fees that can offset the costs fees paid by other regulatees (as is the case for regulatees that owe $501 to $700). We seek comment on whether a $1,000 threshold is high enough to ensure that the regulatory fees collected from any regulatee substantially exceed the costs of collection. We invite comment whether the cost of collections and burden on small entities outweigh the associated regulatory fee payments.

    94Id. (observing that many small entities “are subject to little Commission oversight and regulation which serves to further exacerbate this inequity [of the administrative burden].”).

    95Id.

    96Id.

    38. We also seek comment on whether we should include multi-year wireless licenses in the de minimis threshold. If we adopt a de minimis threshold for multi-year wireless licensees, should the threshold be fee-based, or should it be determined by the number of licenses, frequencies, or paths the licensee holds? We recognize that some entities hold many multi-year licenses and the licenses can be renewed at different times of the year. Commenters should discuss whether including multi-year licenses in the de minimis threshold would be too administratively burdensome. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt a de minimis threshold based on number of cable television subscribers, as suggested by ACA.97

    97 ACA observes that “exempting cable/IPTV providers serving fewer than 1,000 subscribers from the Cable/IPTV fee category would be consistent with other exemptions the Commission has created for these operators, and would serve similar purposes.” ACA ex parte at 4. ACA suggests a progressive fee structure, with the level of rates gradually increasing based on the number of subscribers. Id. at 5 through 6.

    39. In addition, we seek comment on eliminating regulatory fee categories, such as CMRS Messaging (Paging).98 This category accounts for a very small amount of regulatory fees; we seek comment on the benefits of discontinuing such collections. Commenters should discuss other changes to the regulatory fee framework that would facilitate the goal of ensuring that regulatory fees are administrable and sustainable. For example, are there categories of regulatory fee payors that now have very little Commission oversight or regulation, apart from the application fee process? We seek comment on whether there are regulatory fees adopted for some categories in the past where now there is a clear case to conclude that the fee is no longer “reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . .” 99

    98 The Commission has sought comment on this issue previously. See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2014, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 6417, 6429, para. 32 (2014) (FY 2014 NPRM).

    99 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A). We note, however, that the Communications Act provides for “waiver, reduction, and deferment” of a regulatory fee in any specific instance for good cause shown, where such action would promote the public interest. As a result, commenters should not focus suggestions on the merits of individual regulatory fee payors but rather improvements to the system that are consistent with Congressional directive contained in section 9 of the Communications Act.

    40. We tentatively conclude that eliminating categories from our regulatory fee schedule would be a permitted amendment as defined in section 9(b)(3) of the Act,100 and pursuant to section 9(b)(4)(B) must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it would become effective.101

    100 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).

    101 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(4)(B).

    G. Other Reforms

    41. We also seek comment on ways to further improve our regulatory fee process to make it less burdensome for all entities. In particular, we seek comment on ways we can communicate better with smaller regulatees, such as mass emails (instead of through the U.S. Postal Service), and if we should therefore require a current email address for all regulatory fee payors.

    V. Procedural Matters A. Payment of Regulatory Fees 1. Checks Will Not Be Accepted for Payment of Annual Regulatory Fees

    42. Pursuant to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive,102 the Commission is moving towards a paperless environment, extending to disbursement and collection of select federal government payments and receipts.103 In 2015, the Commission stopped accepting checks (including cashier's checks and money orders) and the accompanying hardcopy forms (e.g., Forms 159, 159-B, 159-E, 159-W) for the payment of regulatory fees.104 All regulatory fee payments must be made by online Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment, online credit card, or wire transfer. Any other form of payment (e.g., checks, cashier's checks, or money orders) will be rejected. For payments by wire, a Form 159-E should still be transmitted via fax so that the Commission can associate the wire payment with the correct regulatory fee information.

    102 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-10-06, Open Government Directive, Dec. 8, 2009; see also http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/13/executive-order-13576-delivering-efficient-effective-and-accountable-gov.

    103See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Open Government Plan 2.1, September 2012.

    104FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10282 through 83, para. 35. See 47 CFR 1.1158.

    2. Credit Card Transaction Levels

    43. Since June 1, 2015, in accordance with U.S. Treasury Announcement No. A-2014-04 (July 2014), the amount that can be charged on a credit card for transactions with federal agencies has is $24,999.99.105 Transactions greater than $24,999.99 will be rejected. This limit applies to single payments or bundled payments of more than one bill. Multiple transactions to a single agency in one day may be aggregated and treated as a single transaction subject to the $24,999.99 limit. Customers who wish to pay an amount greater than $24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as Visa or MasterCard debit cards, ACH debits from a bank account, and wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing regulatory fee information in Fee Filer. Further details will be provided regarding payment methods and procedures at the time of FY 2017 regulatory fee collection in Fact Sheets, available at https://www.fcc.gov/regfees.

    105 Customers who owe an amount on a bill, debt, or other obligation due to the federal government are prohibited from splitting the total amount due into multiple payments. Splitting an amount owed into several payment transactions violates the credit card network and Fiscal Service rules. An amount owed that exceeds the Fiscal Service maximum dollar amount, $24,999.99, may not be split into two or more payment transactions in the same day by using one or multiple cards. Also, an amount owed that exceeds the Fiscal Service maximum dollar amount may not be split into two or more transactions over multiple days by using one or more cards.

    3. De Minimis Regulatory Fees

    44. Under the Commission's present de minimis rule for regulatory fee payments, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is $500 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees (not regulatory fees paid through multi-year filings), and it is not a permanent exemption. Each regulatee will need to reevaluate the total annual fee liability each fiscal year to determine whether they meet the de minimis exemption. This de minimis threshold could change as a result of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    4. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates

    45. The Commission will accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment of regulatory fees. The responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as follows:

    Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for initial construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2016 for AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF full service television stations, and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2016.

    Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2016. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. Audio bridging service providers are included in this category.106 For Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) that manage Toll Free Numbers (TFN), regulatory fees should be paid on all working, assigned, and reserved toll free numbers as well as toll free numbers in any other status as defined in section 52.103 of the Commission's rules.107 The unit count should be based on toll free numbers managed by RespOrgs on or about December 31, 2016.

    106 Audio bridging services are toll teleconferencing services.

    107 47 CFR 52.103.

    Wireless Services: CMRS cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based on number of subscribers or telephone number count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2016. The number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2016 will be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

    Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the five-year or ten-year terms of their initial licenses, and pay regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed or a new license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our rulemaking to publicize our estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2017.

    Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable television operators, CARS licensees, DBS, and IPTV): Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2016.108 Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2016. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. For providers of Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service and IPTV-based MVPDs, regulatory fees should be paid based on a subscriber count on or about December 31, 2016. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

    108 Cable television system operators should compute their number of basic subscribers as follows: Number of single family dwellings + number of individual households in multiple dwelling unit (apartments, condominiums, mobile home parks, etc.) paying at the basic subscriber rate + bulk rate customers + courtesy and free service. Note: Bulk-Rate Customers = Total annual bulk-rate charge divided by basic annual subscription rate for individual households. Operators may base their count on “a typical day in the last full week” of December 2016, rather than on a count as of December 31, 2016.

    International Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for (1) earth stations and (2) geostationary orbit space stations and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2016. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

    International Services: (Submarine Cable Systems): Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license basis based on circuit capacity as of December 31, 2016. In instances where a license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the license as of the fee due date. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 2017 will remain at 87.6 percent for submarine cable and 12.4 percent for satellite/terrestrial facilities.

    International Services: (Terrestrial and Satellite Services): Regulatory fees for Terrestrial and Satellite IBCs are to be paid by facilities-based common carriers that have active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2016 in any terrestrial or satellite transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier. When calculating the number of such active circuits, the facilities-based common carriers must include circuits used by themselves or their affiliates. In addition, non-common carrier satellite operators must pay a fee for each circuit they and their affiliates hold and each circuit sold or leased to any customer, other than an international common carrier authorized by the Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier services. For these purposes, “active circuits” include backup and redundant circuits as of December 31, 2016. Whether circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant for purposes of determining that they are active circuits.109 In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 2017 will remain at 87.6 percent for submarine cable and 12.4 percent for satellite/terrestrial facilities.110

    109 We encourage terrestrial and satellite service providers to seek guidance from the International Bureau's Telecommunications and Analysis Division to verify their particular IBC reporting processes to ensure that their calculation methods comply with our rules.

    110 We remind facilities-based common carriers to review their reporting processes to ensure that they accurately calculate and report IBCs.

    B. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) and Mobile Services Assessments

    46. The Commission will compile data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”).111 This information of telephone numbers (subscriber count) will be posted on the Commission's electronic filing and payment system (Fee Filer) along with the carrier's Operating Company Numbers (OCNs).

    111See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2005, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 12259, 12264, paras. 38 through 44 (2005).

    47. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing Fee Filer and follow the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation or supporting documentation.112 The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting documentation and either approve or disapprove the submission in Fee Filer. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response from the provider, or we do not reverse our initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in Fee Filer. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number counts are final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are to be paid. Providers can view their final telephone counts online in Fee Filer. A final CMRS assessment letter will not be mailed out.

    112 In the supporting documentation, the provider will need to state a reason for the change, such as a purchase or sale of a subsidiary, the date of the transaction, and any other pertinent information that will help to justify a reason for the change.

    48. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in Fee Filer. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (i.e., compute their telephone number counts as of December 31, 2016), and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier reviews its telephone number counts in Fee Filer or not, the Commission reserves the right to audit the number of telephone numbers for which regulatory fees are paid. In the event that the Commission determines that the number of telephone numbers that are paid is inaccurate, the Commission will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.

    VI. Additional Tables Table 3—Calculation of FY 2017 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees [Regulatory fees in the first seven fee categories are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.] Fee Category FY 2017 Payment units Years FY 2016
  • Revenue
  • estimate
  • Pro-Rated FY 2017 Revenue requirement Computed FY 2017 Regulatory fee Rounded
  • FY 2017
  • reg. fee
  • Expected
  • FY 2017
  • revenue
  • PLMRS (Exclusive Use) 1,300 10 625,000 326,950 25 25 325,000 PLMRS (Shared use) 16,000 10 3,110,000 1,609,600 10 10 1,600,000 Microwave 11,800 10 3,125,000 2,967,700 25 25 2,950,000 Marine (Ship) 8,100 10 1,035,000 1,222,290 15 15 1,215,000 Aviation (Aircraft) 4,200 10 470,000 422,520 10 10 420,000 Marine (Coast) 150 10 192,500 60,360 40 40 60,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,100 10 220,000 221,329 20 20 220,000 AM Class A 4 65 1 313,500 307,333 4,728 4,725 307,125 AM Class B 4 1,523 1 3,875,875 3,830,345 2,515 2,525 3,845,575 AM Class C 4 870 1 1,400,175 1,356,591 1,559 1,550 1,348,500 AM Class D 4 1,492 1 4,587,900 4,502,856 3,018 3,025 4,513,300 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 4 3,150 1 9,678,200 9,427,478 2,993 3,000 9,450,000 FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2 4 3,114 1 11,849,725 11,590,931 3,722 3,725 11,599,650 AM Construction Permits 1 10 1 9,300 6,500 650 650 6,500 FM Construction Permits1 113 1 192,425 129,950 1,150 1,150 129,950 Satellite TV 126 1 224,000 218,654 1,735 1,725 217,350 Digital TV Markets 1-10 139 1 8,433,825 8,355,082 60,109 60,100 8,353,900 Digital TV Markets 11-25 131 1 6,348,825 5,933,665 45,295 45,300 5,934,300 Digital TV Markets 26-50 181 1 5,525,025 5,471,684 30,230 30,225 5,470,725 Digital TV Markets 51-100 285 1 4,301,600 4,314,986 15,140 15,150 4,317,750 Digital TV Remaining Markets 367 1 1,825,000 1,818,320 4,955 4,950 1,816,650 Digital TV Construction Permits 1 3 1 15,000 14,864 4,955 4,950 14,850 LPTV/Translators/Boosters/Class A TV 4,051 1 1,785,420 1,752,382 433 435 1,762,185 CARS Stations 230 1 220,875 216,340 941 940 216,200 Cable TV Systems, including IPTV 62,000,000 1 64,200,000 59,253,400 .9557 .96 59,520,000 Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 32,500,000 1 9,180,000 12,424,100 .38 .38 12,350,000 Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers 37,300,000,000 1 142,722,000 112,571,400 0.003018 0.00302 112,646,000 Toll Free Numbers 32,700,000 1 4,745,000 3,947,544 0.1207 0.12 3,924,000 CMRS Mobile Services (Cellular/Public Mobile) 385,000,000 1 73,200,000 81,336,108 0.211 0.21 80,850,000 CMRS Messag. Services 2,100,000 1 184,000 168,000 0.0800 0.080 168,000 BRS 2
  • LMDS
  • 870
  • 395
  • 1
  • 1
  • 645,250
  • 286,375
  • 561,398
  • 456,976
  • 805
  • 805
  • 805
  • 805
  • 700,350
  • 317,975
  • Per 64 kbps Int'l Bearer Circuits Terrestrial (Common) & Satellite (Common & Non-Common) 26,500,000 1 638,000 791,219 .0299 .03 795,000 Submarine Cable Providers (see chart in Appendix C) 3 41.19 1 5,486,242 5,589,583 135,709 135,700 5,589,212 Earth Stations 3,400 1 1,173,000 1,228,896 361 360 1,224,000 Space Stations (Geostationary) 95 1 13,155,125 13,725,182 144,476 144,475 13,725,125 Space Stations (Non-Geostationary) 6 1 911,700 951,190 158,532 158,525 951,150 ****** Total Estimated Revenue to be Collected 384,890,362 359,083,693 358,855,322 ****** Total Revenue Requirement 384,012,497 356,710,992 356,710,992 Difference 877,865 2,372,701 2,144,330 Notes on Table 3 1 The AM and FM Construction Permit revenues and the Digital (VHF/UHF) Construction Permit revenues were adjusted, respectively, to set the regulatory fee to an amount no higher than the lowest licensed fee for that class of service. Reductions in the Digital (VHF/UHF) Construction Permit revenues, and in the AM and FM Construction Permit revenues, were offset by increases in the revenue totals for Digital television stations by market size, and in the AM and FM radio stations by class size and population served, respectively. 2 MDS/MMDS category was renamed Broadband Radio Service (BRS). See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, para. 6 (2004). 3 The chart at the end of Table 4 lists the submarine cable bearer circuit regulatory fees (common and non-common carrier basis) that resulted from the adoption of the Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6388 (2008) and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Second Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4208 (2009). 4 The fee amounts listed in the column entitled “Rounded New FY 2017 Regulatory Fee” constitute a weighted average broadcast regulatory fee by class of service. The actual FY 2017 regulatory fees for AM/FM radio station are listed on a grid located at the end of Table 4.
    Table 4—Proposed Regulatory Fees Regulatory fees in the first eight fee categories are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed. Fee category Annual
  • regulatory fee
  • (U.S. $'s)
  • PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90) 25 Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101) 25 Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80) 15 Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80) 40 Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category) 10 PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90) 10 Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87) 10 Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87) 20 CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90) .21 CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90) .08 Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part 27) 805 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR, part 101) 805 AM Radio Construction Permits 650 FM Radio Construction Permits 1,150 Digital TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF and UHF Commercial Markets 1-10 60,100 Markets 11-25 45,300 Markets 26-50 30,225 Markets 51-100 15,150 Remaining Markets 4,950 Construction Permits 4,950 Satellite Television Stations (All Markets) 1,725 Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74) 435 CARS (47 CFR part 78) 940 Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76), Including IPTV .96 Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) (per subscriber) (as defined by section 602(13) of the Act) .38 Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar) .00302 Toll Free (per toll free subscriber) (47 CFR section 52.101 (f) of the rules) .12 Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25) 360 Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100) 144,475 Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) 158,525 International Bearer Circuits—Terrestrial/Satellites (per 64KB circuit) .03 Submarine Cable Landing Licenses Fee (per cable system) See Table Below
    FY 2017 Radio Station Regulatory Fees Population served AM Class A
  • ($)
  • AM Class B
  • ($)
  • AM Class C
  • ($)
  • AM Class D
  • ($)
  • FM Classes
  • A, B1 & C3
  • ($)
  • FM Classes
  • B, C, C0,
  • C1 & C2
  • ($)
  • <=25,000 1,050 750 650 715 1,150 1,300 25,001-75,000 1,575 1,125 975 1,075 1,725 1,950 75,001-150,000 2,375 1,700 1,475 1,600 2,600 2,925 150,001-500,000 3,550 2,525 2,200 2,425 3,875 4,400 500,001-1,200,000 5,325 3,800 3,300 3,625 5,825 6,575 1,200,001-3,000,00 7,975 5,700 4,950 5,425 8,750 9,875 3,000,001-6,000,00 11,950 8,550 7,400 8,150 13,100 14,800 >6,000,000 17,950 12,825 11,100 12,225 19,650 22,225
    International Bearer Circuits—Submarine Cable Submarine cable systems
  • (capacity as of December 31, 2016)
  • Fee amount
  • ($)
  • <2.5 Gbps 8,475 2.5 Gbps or greater, but less than 5 Gbps 16,975 5 Gbps or greater, but less than 10 Gbps 33,925 10 Gbps or greater, but less than 20 Gbps 67,850 20 Gbps or greater 135,700
    Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2017

    In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2017, we adjusted FY 2016 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2017 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections when available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), Consolidated Database System (CDBS) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast.

    We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, we compared FY 2017 estimates with actual FY 2016 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated with sufficient accuracy. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2017 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates from time to time due to economic, technical, or other reasons. When we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2017 payment units are based on FY 2016 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2017 projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2016. We have either rounded the FY 2017 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.

    Fee category Sources of payment unit estimates Land Mobile (All), Microwave, Marine (Ship & Coast), Aviation (Aircraft & Ground), Domestic Public Fixed Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) projections of new applications and renewals taking into consideration existing Commission licensee data bases. Aviation (Aircraft) and Marine (Ship) estimates have been adjusted to take into consideration the licensing of portions of these services on a voluntary basis. CMRS Cellular/Mobile Services Based on WTB projection reports, and FY 16 payment data. CMRS Messaging Services Based on WTB reports, and FY 16 payment data. AM/FM Radio Stations Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2016 payment units. Digital TV Stations (Combined VHF/UHF units) Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2016 payment units. AM/FM/TV Construction Permits Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2016 payment units. LPTV, Translators and Boosters, Class A Television Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2016 payment units. BRS (formerly MDS/MMDS) LMDS Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2016 payment units. Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2016 payment units. Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) Stations Based on data from Media Bureau's COALS database and actual FY 2016 payment units. Cable Television System Subscribers, Including IPTV Subscribers Based on publicly available data sources for estimated subscriber counts and actual FY 2016 payment units. Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers Based on FCC Form 499-Q data for the four quarters of calendar year 2016, the Wireline Competition Bureau projected the amount of calendar year 2016 revenue that will be reported on 2017 FCC Form 499-A worksheets due in April, 2017. Earth Stations Based on International Bureau (“IB”) licensing data and actual FY 2016 payment units. Space Stations (GSOs & NGSOs) Based on IB data reports and actual FY 2016 payment units. International Bearer Circuits Based on IB reports and submissions by licensees, adjusted as necessary. Submarine Cable Licenses Based on IB license information. TABLE 6—Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Determine Station Signal Contours and Associated Population Coverages AM Stations For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phase, spacing, and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all directions in the horizontal plane (RMS) figure (milliVolt per meter (mV/m) @1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or augmented standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in sections 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. Radiation values were calculated for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated soil conductivity data was retrieved from a database representing the information in FCC Figure R3. Using the calculated horizontal radiation values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the distance to the principal community (5 mV/m) contour was predicted for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block centroids were contained in the polygon. (A block centroid is the center point of a small area containing population as computed by the U.S. Census Bureau.) The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area. FM Stations The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power (ERP) (kW) and respective height above average terrain (HAAT) (m) combination was used. Where the antenna height above mean sea level (HAMSL) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves specified in 47 CFR 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the principal community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt per meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block centroids were contained in the polygon. The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area. Table 7—List of the Licensed Satellite Television Stations Based on Commission Records [all markets] FCC_ID Call sign TV market Licensee as of September 28, 2016 11912 KAAS-TV Wichita-Hutchinson, KS KSAS LICENSEE, LLC 48659 KABY-TV Sioux Falls-Mitchell, SD GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 4145 KAII-TV Honolulu, HI LIN LICENSE COMPANY, LLC 13813 KATN Fairbanks, AK VISION ALASKA II LLC 48556 KBIM-TV Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM LIN OF NEW MEXICO, LLC 55370 KBRR Fargo-Valley City, ND RED RIVER BROADCAST CO., LLC 66414 KBSD-DT Wichita-Hutchinson, KS GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 66415 KBSH-DT Wichita-Hutchinson, KS GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 66416 KBSL-DT Wichita-Hutchinson, KS GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 6669 KBTX-TV Waco-Temple-Bryan, TX GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 35909 KBVO Austin, TX KXAN LLC 49750 KCBY-TV Eugene, OR SINCLAIR EUGENE LICENSEE, LLC 9632 KCCO-TV Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN CBS BROADCASTING INC. 9640 KCCW-TV Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN CBS BROADCASTING INC. 18079 KCFW-TV Missoula, MT BLUESTONE LICENSE HOLDINGS INC. 41969 KCLO-TV Rapid City, SD YOUNG BROADCASTING OF RAPID CITY, INC. 60740 KDKF Medford-Klamath Falls, OR OREGON TV LICENSE COMPANY LLC 41975 KDLO-TV Sioux Falls-Mitchell, SD YOUNG BROADCASTING OF SIOUX FALLS, INC. 55375 KDLV-TV Sioux Falls-Mitchell, SD RED RIVER BROADCAST CO., LLC 56029 KEPR-TV Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, WA SINCLAIR YAKIMA LICENSEE, LLC 125 KFCT Denver, CO TRIBUNE BROADCASTING DENVER LICENSE 21613 KFNE Casper-Riverton, WY WYOMEDIA CORPORATION 21612 KFNR Casper-Riverton, WY WYOMEDIA CORPORATION 83714 KFTC Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, LLC 7894 KGIN Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney, NE GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 36914 KGMD-TV Honolulu, HI HITV LICENSE SUBSIDIARY, INC. 36920 KGMV Honolulu, HI HITV LICENSE SUBSIDIARY, INC. 63162 KGWL-TV Casper-Riverton, WY MARK III MEDIA, INC. 63170 KGWR-TV Casper-Riverton, WY MARK III MEDIA, INC. 4146 KHAW-TV Honolulu, HI LIN LICENSE COMPANY, LLC 34846 KHBC-TV Honolulu, HI KHNL/KGMB LICENSE SUBSIDIARY, LLC 60354 KHOG-TV Ft. Smith-Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR KHBS HEARST TELEVISION INC. 34348 KHSD-TV Rapid City, SD GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 64544 KHVO Honolulu, HI KITV, INC. 55364 KJRR Fargo-Valley City, ND RED RIVER BROADCAST CO., LLC 1283 KJWP Philadelphia, PA PMCM TV, LLC 65523 KLBY Wichita-Hutchinson, KS KNOXVILLE TV LLC 664 KLEI-TV Honolulu, HI MAUNA KEA BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 56032 KLEW-TV Spokane, WA SINCLAIR LEWISTON LICENSEE, LLC 64551 KMAU Honolulu, HI KITV, INC. 35183 KMCB Eugene, OR KMTR TELEVISION, LLC 22127 KMCY Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND KBMY-KMCY, LLC 41425 KMOT Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 82615 KNDM Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND LEGACY BROADCASTING, LLC 12427 KNDU Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, WA KHQ, INCORPORATED 17683 KNEP Cheyenne, WY-Scottsbluff, NE GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 55362 KNRR Fargo-Valley City, ND RED RIVER BROADCAST CO., LLC 29557 KNWA-TV Ft. Smith-Fayetteville -Springdale-Rogers, AR NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 35321 KOBF Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM KOB-TV, LLC 62272 KOBR Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM KOB-TV, LLC 83181 KOCW Wichita-Hutchinson, KS KSAS LICENSEE, LLC 34859 KOGG Honolulu, HI KHNL/KGMB LICENSE SUBSIDIARY, LLC 8284 KOTI Medford-Klamath Falls, OR CALIFORNIA OREGON BROADCASTING, INC. 61551 KPIC Eugene, OR SOUTH WEST OREGON TV BROAD. CORP. 41964 KPLO-TV Sioux Falls-Mitchell, SD YOUNG BROADCASTING OF SIOUX FALLS, INC. 73998 KPOB-TV Paducah-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg-Mt Vernon WSIL-TV, INC. 48660 KPRY-TV Sioux Falls-Mitchell, SD GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 41430 KQCD-TV Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 17686 KQME Rapid City, SD LEGACY BROADCASTING OF RAPID CITY LLC 70578 KREG-TV Denver, CO NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 70579 KREY-TV Grand Junction-Montrose, CO NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 48589 KREZ-TV Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM LIN OF COLORADO, LLC 82698 KRII Duluth, MN-Superior, WI KBJR LICENSE, LLC 82613 KRTN-TV Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM RAMAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 84157 KRWB-TV Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM KASY-TV LICENSEE LLC 35585 KRWF Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN KSAX-TV, INC. 307 KSAN-TV San Angelo, TX MISSION BROADCASTING, INC. 35584 KSAX Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN KSAX-TV, INC. 17680 KSGW-TV Rapid City, SD GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 72359 KSNC Wichita-Hutchinson, KS LIN LICENSE COMPANY, LLC 72361 KSNG Wichita-Hutchinson, KS LIN LICENSE COMPANY, LLC 72362 KSNK Wichita-Hutchinson, KS LIN LICENSE COMPANY, LLC 63182 KSTF Cheyenne, WY-Scottsbluff, NE GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 35187 KTCW Eugene, OR KMTR TELEVISION, LLC 68541 KTRE Tyler-Longview, TX KLTV/KTRE LICENSE SUBSIDIARY, LLC 28501 KTTM Sioux Falls-Mitchell, SD INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 18066 KTVM-TV Butte-Bozeman, MT BLUESTONE LICENSE HOLDINGS INC. 41429 KUMV-TV Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND GRAY TELEVISION LICENSEE, LLC 65535 KUPK Wichita-Hutchinson, KS KNOXVILLE TV LLC 2495 KVEW Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, WA APPLE VALLEY BROADCASTING, INC. 40450 KVIH-TV Amarillo, TX KVII LICENSEE, LLC 33078 KVTV Laredo, TX EAGLE CREEK BROADCASTING OF LAREDO 42008 KWAB-TV Odessa-Midland, TX KWES LICENSE SUBSIDIARY, LLC 21162 KWNB-TV Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney, NE KHGI LICENSEE, LLC 55684 KXMA-TV Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 55686 KXMB-TV Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 55683 KXMD-TV Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 60384 KYLE-TV Waco-Temple-Bryan, TX NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 5237 KYUS-TV Billings, MT KYUS-TV BROADCASTING CORPORATION 76001 WBKP Marquette, MI LAKE SUPERIOR COMMUNITY BROAD. CORP. 69544 WCCU Champaign-Springfield-Decatur, IL GOCOM MEDIA OF ILLINOIS, LLC 74419 WCDC-TV Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY YOUNG BROADCASTING OF ALBANY, INC. 42116 WCIX Champaign-Springfield-Decatur, IL NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 22124 WDAZ-TV Fargo-Valley City, ND FORUM COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY 71325 WDBB Birmingham, AL WDBB-TV, INC. 6476 WDPX-TV Boston, MA ION MEDIA BOSTON LICENSE, INC. 2709 WEUX La Crosse-Eau Claire, WI NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 60553 WFTY-DT New York, NY UNIVISION NEW YORK LLC 25395 WFUP Traverse City-Cadillac, MI CADILLAC TELECASTING CO. 59279 WGTQ Traverse City-Cadillac, MI TRAVERSE CITY (WGTU-TV) LICENSEE, INC. 48668 WHLT Hattiesburg-Laurel, MS MEDIA GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS 25684 WICD Champaign-Springfield-Decatur, IL WICD LICENSEE, LLC 39887 WIRS San Juan, PR AMERICA-CV STATION GROUP, INC. 71336 WIRT-DT Duluth, MN-Superior, WI WDIO-TV, LLC 68519 WJKT Jackson, TN NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 86537 WJLP New York, NY PMCM TV, LLC 9630 WJMN-TV Marquette, MI NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 58342 WJWN-TV San Juan, PR AMERICA-CV STATION GROUP, INC. 58341 WKPV San Juan, PR AMERICA-CV STATION GROUP, INC. 73336 WNJX-TV San Juan, PR TELEVICENTRO OF PUERTO RICO, LLC 73344 WNNE Burlington, VT-Plattsburgh, NY HEARST STATIONS INC. 16539 WNTZ-TV Alexandria, LA NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 64865 WORA-TV San Juan, PR TELECINCO, INC. 48406 WPXG-TV Boston, MA ION MEDIA BOSTON LICENSE, INC. 37971 WPXU-TV Greenville-New Bern -Washington, NC ION MEDIA JACKSONVILLE LICENSE, INC. 64550 WQOW La Crosse-Eau Claire, WI WXOW-WQOW LICENSE, LLC 19776 WSUR-DT San Juan, PR WLII/WSUR LICENSE PARTNERSHIP, G.P. 26681 WTIN-TV San Juan, PR TELEVICENTRO OF PUERTO RICO, LLC 21254 WTOM-TV Traverse City-Cadillac, MI WPBN LICENSEE, LLC 56526 WTTK Indianapolis, IN TRIBUNE BROADCASTING INDIANAPOLIS, LLC 61573 WVEO San Juan, PR SPANISH BROAD. SYSTEM HOLDING CO. 24812 WWCW Roanoke-Lynchburg, VA NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. 23264 WWPX-TV Washington, DC ION MEDIA MARTINSBURG LICENSE, INC. 26993 WWUP-TV Traverse City-Cadillac, MI HERITAGE BROAD. COMPANY OF MICHIGAN 35582 WYDO Greenville-New Bern -Washington, NC ESTEEM BROADCASTING OF NORTH CAROLINA 77789 WYOW Wausau-Rhinelander, WI WAOW-WYOW LICENSE, LLC 83270 WZVI Virgin Islands ALPHA BROADCASTING CORPORATION Table 8—FY 2016 Schedule of Regulatory Fees [Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.] Fee Category Annual
  • regulatory fee
  • (U.S. $s)
  • PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90) 25 Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101) 25 Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80) 15 Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80) 40 Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category) 10 PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90) 10 Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87) 10 Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87) 20 CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90) .20 CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90) .08 Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part 27) 725 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR, part 101) 725 AM Radio Construction Permits 620 FM Radio Construction Permits 1,075 Digital TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF and UHF Commercial: Markets 1-10 60,675 Markets 11-25 45,675 Markets 26-50 30,525 Markets 51-100 15,200 Remaining Markets 5,000 Construction Permits 5,000 Satellite Television Stations (All Markets) 1,750 Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74) 455 CARS (47 CFR part 78) 775 Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76), Including IPTV 1.00 Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) (per subscriber) (as defined by section 602(13) of the Act) .27 Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar) .00371 Toll Free (per toll free subscriber) (47 CFR section 52.101 (f) of the rules) .13 Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25) 345 Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100) 138,475 Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) 151,950 International Bearer Circuits—Terrestrial/Satellites (per 64KB circuit) .02 Submarine Cable Landing Licenses Fee (per cable system) See Table Below
    FY 2016 Schedule of Regulatory Fees: (continued) [FY 2016 Radio Station Regulatory Fees] Population served AM Class A
  • ($)
  • AM Class B
  • ($)
  • AM Class C
  • ($)
  • AM Class D
  • ($)
  • FM Classes
  • A, B1 & C3
  • ($)
  • FM Classes
  • B, C, C0,
  • C1 & C2
  • ($)
  • <=25,000 990 715 620 685 1,075 1,250 25,001-75,000 1,475 1,075 925 1,025 1,625 1,850 75,001-150,000 2,200 1,600 1,375 1,525 2,400 2,750 150,001-500,000 3,300 2,375 2,075 2,275 3,600 4,125 500,001-1,200,000 5,500 3,975 3,450 3,800 6,000 6,875 1,200,001-3,000,000 8,250 5,950 5,175 5,700 9,000 10,300 3,000,001-6,000,000 11,000 7,950 6,900 7,600 12,000 13,750 >6,000,000 13,750 9,950 8,625 9,500 15,000 17,175
    FY 2016 Schedule of Regulatory Fees (continued) [International Bearer Circuits—Submarine Cable] Submarine Cable Systems
  • (capacity as of December 31, 2015)
  • Fee amount
    < 2.5 Gbps $8,325 2.5 Gbps or greater, but less than 5 Gbps 16,650 5 Gbps or greater, but less than 10 Gbps 33,300 10 Gbps or greater, but less than 20 Gbps 66,600 20 Gbps or greater 133,200
    VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),113 the Commission prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments on this NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.114

    113 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

    114Id.

    A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Notice

    2. This NPRM seeks comment regarding adopting proposed regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2017. The proposed regulatory fees are attached to the NPRM in Table 4. This regulatory fee NPRM is needed each year because the Commission is required by Congress to adopt regulatory fees each year “to recover the costs of . . . enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking activities, user information services, and international activities.” 115 The objective of this NPRM is to propose regulatory fees for fiscal year 2017 and adopt regulatory fee reform to improve the regulatory fee process. This NPRM seeks comment on the following proposals. (i) The NPRM proposes an increase in the DBS fee rate to 38 cents per DBS subscriber so that the DBS fee would be approaching parity with the cable television/IPTV fee, based on the Media Bureau FTEs devoted to issues that include DBS. (ii) The NPRM seeks comment on revising rates for AM and FM broadcasters and further reducing rates for those broadcasters in smaller markets. (iii) The NPRM seeks comment on correctly identifying satellite television operators and ensuring that they pay the regulatory fee associated with satellite television. (iv) The NPRM seeks comment on adopting a new methodology for determining terrestrial international bearer circuit regulatory fees. (v) The NPRM seeks comment on providing additional regulatory fee relief to smaller entities by increasing the de minimis threshold from $500 to $1,000; allowing multiyear fee categories to be de minimis if the licensees' total fee for the year is no greater than the de minimis threshold; and eliminating certain fee categories from regulatory fees. (vi) The NPRM seeks comment on a proposal to reassign certain Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau FTEs as indirect FTEs and reassign certain Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs as Wireless Telecommunications Bureau FTEs, for regulatory fee purposes.

    115 47 U.S.C. 159(a).

    B. Legal Basis

    3. This action, including publication of proposed rules, is authorized under sections (4)(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.116

    116 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 159, and 303(r).

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply

    4. 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 and policies, if adopted.117 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 118 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.119 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.120

    117 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

    118 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    119 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”

    120 15 U.S.C. 632.

    5. Small Entities. 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 by the proposals under consideration.121 As of 2009, small businesses represented 99.9 percent of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.122 In addition, a “small organization is generally any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field.123 In addition, the term “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.” 124 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.125 We estimate that, of this total, as many as 89,327 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” 126 Thus, we estimate that most local government jurisdictions are small.

    121See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) through (6).

    122See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf.

    123 5 U.S.C. 601(4).

    124 5 U.S.C. 601(5).

    125See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf.

    126 The 2011 U.S. Census Data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the population in each organization. As stated above, there were 90,056 local governmental organizations in 2011. As a basis for estimating how many of these 90,056 local governmental organizations were small, we note that there were a total of 729 cities and towns (incorporated places and civil divisions) with populations over 50,000. See http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table. If we subtract the 729 cities and towns that exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 789,237 are small.

    6. 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.” 127 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.128 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.129 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

    127See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    128See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 517110.

    129http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    7. 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 for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.130 According to census data from 2012, there were 3,117 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.131 The Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules proposed in the NPRM.

    130 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    131http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    8. 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. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.132 According to census data from 2012, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.133 According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers.134 Of this total of 1,307 incumbent local exchange service providers, an estimated 1,006 operated with 1,500 or fewer employees.135 Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the rules proposed in this NPRM.

    132 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    133http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    134See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division at Table 5.3 (September 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service).

    135See id.

    9. 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. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.136 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.137 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 the Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider services.138 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.139 Also, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.140 Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees.141 Consequently, 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 that may be affected by rules proposed in this NPRM.

    136 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    137http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    138See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    139Id.

    140Id.

    141Id.

    10. 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 in paragraph 6 of this IRFA. The applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.142 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.143 According to Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services.144 Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected by rules proposed in this NPRM.

    142 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    143http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    144See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    11. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate NAICS code category for prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry.145 Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.146 U.S. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.147 Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards.148 All 193 carriers have 1,500 or fewer employees.149 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by rules proposed in this NPRM.

    145http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssd/naics/naicsrch.

    146 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

    147http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    148See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    149Id.

    12. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.150 Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.151 Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.152 Under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these local resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services.153 Of this total, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees.154 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by rules proposed in this NPRM.

    150 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

    151http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    152http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    153See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    154Id.

    13. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS code Category is Telecommunications Resellers, and the SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers.155 Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.156 Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.157 Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.158 Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services.159 Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees.160 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by the rules proposed in the NPRM.

    155 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

    156Id.

    157http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    158Id.

    159Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

    160Id.

    14. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard 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 in paragraph 6 of this IRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.161 Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year.162 Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.163 Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be considered small. According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage.164 Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees.165 Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be affected by the rules proposed in the NPRM.

    161 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    162http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    163Id.

    164Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    165Id.

    15. 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.166 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, Census Data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.167 Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees.168 Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services.169 Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees.170 Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small and may be affected by rules proposed in this NPRM.

    166 NAICS code 517210. See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssd/naics/naiscsrch.

    167http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    168http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    169Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    170Id.

    16. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” 171 These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.172 The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 television broadcasting firms operated during that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of less than $25 million per year. Based on that Census data we conclude that a majority of firms that operate television stations are small. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387.173 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or less.174 We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.

    171 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS code Economic Definitions, http://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    172 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120.

    173See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012; http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.

    174 We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the FCC total given supra.

    17. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 175 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

    175 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.” 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).

    18. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 396.176 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.177 There are also 2,528 low power television stations, including Class A stations (LPTV).178 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

    176See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012; http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.

    177See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).

    178See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012; http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.

    19. Radio Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.” 179 The SBA has established a small business size standard for this category, which is: Such firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.180 U.S. Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year.181 Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year.182 According to Commission staff review of BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Radio Database on March 28, 2012, about 10,759 (97%) of 11,102 commercial radio stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities.

    179 http://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    180 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515112.

    181http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    182http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    20. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above size standard, business affiliations must be included.183 In addition, to be determined to be a “small business,” the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.184 It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.

    183 “Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both. It does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists.” 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1) (an SBA regulation).

    184 13 CFR 121.102(b) (an SBA regulation).

    21. Cable Television 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.185 The SBA has established a size standard for this industry of $38.5 million or less. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 367 firms that operated that year.186 Of this total, 319 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million.187 Thus under this size standard, the majority of firms offering cable and other program distribution services can be considered small and may be affected by rules proposed in this NPRM.

    185https://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    186http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    187http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US-51SSSZ5&prodType=Table.

    22. Cable Companies and Systems. 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.188 Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable systems in the United States.189 Of this total, all but ten cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size standard.190 In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.191 Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide.192 Of this total, 3,900 cable systems have less than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records.193 Thus, under this standard as well, the Commission estimates that most cable systems are small entities.

    188 47 CFR 76.901(e).

    189 August 15, 2015 Report from the Media Bureau based on data contained in the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS). See www/fcc.gov/coals.

    190See SNL KAGAN at www.snl.com/interactiveX/top cableMSOs aspx?period2015Q1&sortcol=subscribersbasic&sortorder=desc.

    191 47 CFR 76.901(c).

    192See footnote 2, supra.

    193 August 5, 2015 report from the Media Bureau based on its research in COALS. See www.fcc.gov/coals.

    23. 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.” 194 There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video subscribers in the United States today.195 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.196 Based on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard.197 The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.198 Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, 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.

    194 47 CFR 76.901 (f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3.

    195See SNL KAGAN at www.snl.com/interactivex/MultichannelIndustryBenchmarks.aspx.

    196 47 CFR 76.901(f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3.

    197See SNL KAGAN at www.snl.com/Interactivex/TopCable MSOs.aspx.

    198 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to 47 CFR 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 76.901(f).

    24. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census category “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The Wired Telecommunications Carriers 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 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.199 The SBA determines that a wireline business is small if it has fewer than 1500 employees.200 Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 wireline companies were operational during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.201 Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of wireline firms are small under the applicable standard. However, currently only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great deal of capital for operation: AT&T and DISH Network.202 AT&T and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Accordingly, we must conclude that DBS service is provided only by large firms.

    199http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    200 NAICs code 517110; 13 CFR 121.201.

    201http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices.jasf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid+ECN_2012_US.51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    202See 15th Annual Video Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 1057, Section 27.

    25. 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.203 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.204 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.205 Thus, a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by the proposals in the NPRM can be considered small.

    203http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssssd/naics/naicsrch.

    204 13 CFR 121.201; NAICs code 517919.

    205http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices.jasf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid+ECN_2012_US.51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    26. RespOrgs. Responsible Organizations, or RespOrgs, are entities chosen by toll free subscribers to manage and administer the appropriate records in the toll free Service Management System for the toll free subscriber.206 Although RespOrgs are often wireline carriers, they can also include non-carrier entities. Therefore, in the definition herein of RespOrgs, two categories are presented, i.e., Carrier RespOrgs and Non-Carrier RespOrgs.

    206See 47 CFR 52.101(b).

    27. Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the U.S. Census, nor the SBA have developed a definition for Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based definitional categories for Carrier RespOrgs are Wired Telecommunications Carriers,207 and Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).208

    207 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    208Id.

    28. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wired Telecommunications Carriers 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.209 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.210 Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated for that entire year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with less than 1,000 employees.211 Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of Carrier RespOrgs that operated with wireline-based technology are small.

    209http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.

    210 13 CFR 120,201, NAICS code 517110.

    211http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    29. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite) as establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.212 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.213 Census data for 2012 show that 967 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers operated in that year. Of that number, 955 operated with less than 1,000 employees.214 Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of Carrier RespOrgs that operated with wireless-based technology are small.

    212http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.

    213 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 517120.

    214http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    30. Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the U.S. Census, nor the SBA have developed a definition of Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based definitional categories for Non-Carrier RespOrgs are “Other Services Related to Advertising” 215 and “Other Management Consulting Services.” 216

    215 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890.

    216 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541618.

    31. The U.S. Census defines Other Services Related to Advertising as comprising establishments primarily engaged in providing advertising services (except advertising agency services, public relations agency services, media buying agency services, media representative services, display advertising services, direct mail advertising services, advertising material distribution services, and marketing consulting services).217 The SBA has established a size standard for this industry as annual receipts of $15 million dollars or less.218 Census data for 2012 show that 5,804 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 5,249 operated with annual receipts of less than $10 million.219 Based on that data we conclude that the majority of Non-Carrier RespOrgs who provide toll-free number (TFN)-related advertising services are small.

    217http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.

    218 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890.

    219http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    32. The U.S. Census defines Other Management Consulting Services as establishments primarily engaged in providing management consulting services (except administrative and general management consulting; human resources consulting; marketing consulting; or process, physical distribution, and logistics consulting). Establishments providing telecommunications or utilities management consulting services are included in this industry.220 The SBA has established a size standard for this industry of $15 million dollars or less.221 Census data for 2012 show that 3,683 firms operated in this industry for that entire year. Of that number, 3,632 operated with less than $10 million in annual receipts.222 Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of non-carrier RespOrgs who provide TFN-related management consulting services are small.223

    220http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.

    221 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 514618.

    222http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    223 The four NAICS code-based categories selected above to provide definitions for Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs were selected because as a group they refer generically and comprehensively to all RespOrgs.

    33. In addition to the data contained in the four (see above) U.S. Census NAICS code categories that provide definitions of what services and functions the Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs provide, Somos, the trade association that monitors RespOrg activities, compiled data showing that as of July 1, 2016 there were 23 RespOrgs operational in Canada and 436 RespOrgs operational in the United States, for a total of 459 RespOrgs currently registered with Somos.

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    34. This NPRM does not propose any changes to the Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements.

    E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (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.224

    224 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).

    36. This NPRM seeks comment on the Commission's regulatory fee collection for Fiscal Year 2017, as required by Congress each year. Specifically, we ask for comments each year in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis on how to minimize adverse economic impact, imposed by our proposed rules, on small entities. The regulatory fees proposed in this NPRM do not include any new fee categories. However, the proposal to reduce fees for smaller broadcast entities may provide financial relief to smaller entities if it is adopted. The proposal to increase the de minimis threshold from $500 to $1,000 would, if adopted, allow additional smaller entities to pay no regulatory fees if their annual total amount of fees is no greater than $1,000. The proposal to allow multiyear licenses to be de minimis based on the total amount of fees owed each year, if adopted, would allow smaller entities with multiyear licenses to pay no regulatory fees depending on the total amount owed each year. Finally, the proposal to exclude certain licenses from regulatory fees may, if adopted, provide financial relief to smaller entities because they would not have to pay regulatory fees for those particular licenses at all.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

    37. None.

    VIII. Ordering Clause

    38. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 159, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liasion Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11578 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 107 Tuesday, June 6, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-NOP-17-0009; NOP-17-01] National Organic Standards Board (NOSB): Call for Nominations AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice: Call for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was established to assist in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production and to advise the Secretary on the implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). Through this Notice, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is announcing its call for nominations to fill one (1) upcoming vacancy for an individual with expertise in areas of environmental protection and resource conservation. The five-year term will begin January 24, 2018, and end January 23, 2023. Additionally, the USDA seeks nominations for a pool of candidates that the Secretary of Agriculture can draw upon as replacement appointees if unexpected vacancies occur. A person appointed to fill an unexpected vacancy will serve for the remainder of the 5-year term of the vacant position. Previous applicants who wish to be considered must reapply.

    DATES:

    Written nominations must be postmarked on or before August 7, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications can be sent via email to Michelle Arsenault at [email protected], or mailed to: USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2642-S., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268. Electronic submittals are preferred.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Arsenault, (202) 720-0081; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OFPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), requires the Secretary to establish the NOSB in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2 et seq.). The NOSB is composed of 15 members including: Four individuals who own or operate an organic farming operation; two individuals who own or operate an organic handling operation; one individual who owns or operates a retail establishment with significant trade in organic products; three individuals with expertise in areas of environmental protection and resource conservation; three individuals who represent public interest or consumer interest groups; one scientist with expertise in the fields of toxicology, ecology, or biochemistry; and one individual who is a certifying agent.

    As per the OFPA, individuals seeking appointment to the NOSB must meet the definition of the position that they seek as identified under 7 U.S.C. 6518, as well as satisfy the selection criteria for an NOSB member. Selection criteria include the following: An understanding of organic principles and practical experience in the organic community; demonstrated experience and interest in organic production and organic certification; demonstrated experience with respect to agricultural products produced and handled on certified organic farms; a commitment to the integrity of the organic food and fiber industry; demonstrated experience in the development of public policy such as participation on public or private advisory boards, boards of directors or other comparable organizations; support of consumer and public interest organizations; participation in standards development or involvement in educational outreach activities; the ability to evaluate technical information and to fully participate in Board deliberation and recommendations; the willingness to commit the time and energy necessary to assume Board duties; and other such factors as may be appropriate for specific positions.

    To nominate yourself or someone else, please submit the following: a resume (required), Form AD-755 (required), which can be accessed at: http://www.usda.gov/documents/OCIO_AD_755_Master_2012.pdf, a cover letter (optional), and a list of endorsements or letters of recommendation (optional). Resumes must be no longer than 5 pages, and should include a summary of the following information: Current and past organization affiliations; areas of expertise; education; career positions held; any other notable positions held. Previous applicants who wish to be considered must reapply.

    If USDA receives a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) for records relating to NOSB nominations, your application materials may be released to the requester. Prior to the release of the information, personally identifiable information protected by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, will be redacted.

    Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, mental or physical disability, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that the recommendations of the NOSB take into account the needs of the diverse groups that are served by the Department, membership on the NOSB shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

    The information collection requirements concerning the nomination process have been previously cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0505-0001.

    Dated: May 31, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11639 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice 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 that the Tennessee (State) Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 to discuss potential participants to the hearing on civil asset forfeiture.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:30 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 888-452-4005, conference ID: 5512313.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hinton, DFO, at [email protected] or (404) 562-7006.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-452-4005, conference ID: 5512313. 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 also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by July 21, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Tennessee Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Diane DiIanni, Tennessee SAC Chairman Jeff Hinton, Regional Director Regional Update—Jeff Hinton New Business: Discussion of Potential Participants to the Hearing: Diane DiIanni, Tennessee SAC Chairman/Staff/Advisory Committee Public Participation Adjournment Dated: May 31, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11617 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice 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 that the Tennessee Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, to finalize potential participants to the hearing on civil asset forfeiture.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:30 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 800-500-3170, conference ID: 6846142.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hinton, DFO, at [email protected] or (404) 562-7006.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-500-3170, conference ID: 6846142. 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 also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by July 10, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Tennessee Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Diane DiIanni, Tennessee SAC Chairman Jeff Hinton, Regional Director Regional Update—Jeff Hinton New Business: Finalize Potential Participants to the Hearing: Diane DiIanni, Tennessee SAC Chairman/Staff/Advisory Committee Public Participation Adjournment Dated: May 31, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11618 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [5/17/2017 through 5/25/2017] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Mursix Corporation 2401 North Executive Park Drive, Yorktown, IN 47396 5/18/2017 The firm manufactures stamped metal parts for the automotive industry. Summit Corporation of America 1430 Waterbury Road, Thomaston, CT 6787 5/24/2017 The firm is a complete electroplating production facility that operates over 25 plating lines for continuous strip and wire, as well as individual parts plating by rack or barrel.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Miriam Kearse, Lead Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11631 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-815] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectuangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from Turkey. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. This administrative review covers nine exporters of the subject merchandise, including two mandatory respondents, Cinar Boru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (CINAR) and Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. (Noksel). The Department preliminarily determines that CINAR and Noksel made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective June 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Hill or Patrick O'Connor, 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) 482-3518 or (202) 482-0989, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the antidumping order is certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 millimeters from Turkey. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. For a full description of the scope of the order, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

    1See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance “Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016,” dated concurrently with, and hereby incorporated by reference (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.2 Further, a list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memoradum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    2See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016, as follows:

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cinar Boru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S 4.00 Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S 5.05 Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S 4.87 Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S 4.87 Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S 4.87 Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S 4.87 Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S 4.87 Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S 4.87 Agir Haddecilik A.S 4.87

    For the rate for non-selected respondents in an administrative review, generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.” With two respondents, we normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies.3 Accordingly, we have applied a rate of 4.87 percent to the non-selected companies, as set forth in the chart above.4

    3See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010).

    4See Memorandum from Jonathan Hill, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance to the File, “Calculation of the Rate for Non-Selected Respondents,” dated May 31, 2017.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).5 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction.6 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    5 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation methodology adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    6See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of LWRPT from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 27.04 percent ad valorem, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    7See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 73 FR 19814 (April 11, 2008).

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to interested parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.8 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each brief: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.9 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.10 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.11

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    10Id.

    11See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.

    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised by the parties in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, unless otherwise extended.12

    12See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Dated: May 31, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Selection of Respondents V. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments VI. Affiliation VII. Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination VIII. Allegation of Duty Evasion IX. Use of Partial Adverse Facts Available X. Discussion of the Methodology a. Comparison to Normal Value i. Determination of a Comaparison Methodology ii. Results of Differential Pricing b. Product Comparisons c. Date of Sale d. Export Price e. Duty Drawback f. Normal Value i. Home Market Viability ii. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's Length Test iii. Level of Trade g. Cost of Production Analysis i. Calculation of Cost of Production ii. Test of Comparison Market Prices iii. Results of Cost of Production Test h. Calculation of a Normal Value on Comparison-Market Prices i. Currency Conversion XI. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-11667 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-869] Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products (certain nickel-plated, flat-rolled steel) from Japan.1 The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. The review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. (Toyo Kohan) and Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metals Corporation (NSSMC). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Toyo Kohan were made at less than normal value during the POR. We also preliminarily determine that NSSMC did not have reviewable entries during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 44260 (July 7, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    DATES:

    Effective June 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Davis, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7924, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 2, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain nickel-plated, flat-rolled steel from Japan.2 On May 11, 2016, respondent Toyo Kohan requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sale and shipments to the United States during the POR.3 On May 31, 2016, the petitioner, Thomas Steel Strip Corporation (Thomas Steel), requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Toyo Kohan and NSSMC.4 On July 7, 2016, in response to these timely requests, and in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain nickel-plated, flat-rolled steel from Japan with respect to both Toyo Kohan and NSSMC.5

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 26206 (May 2, 2016).

    3See Letter from Toyo Kohan to the Department regarding “Toyo Kohan's Request for Antidumping Administrative Review, Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan,” dated May 11, 2016.

    4See Letter from Thomas Steel to the Department regarding “Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel from Japan: Request for Second Administrative Review of Antidumping Order,” dated May 31, 2016.

    5See Initiation Notice, 81 FR at 44262.

    Scope of the Order

    The diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products included in this order are flat-rolled, cold-reduced steel products, regardless of chemistry; whether or not in coils; either plated or coated with nickel or nickel-based alloys and subsequently annealed (i.e., “diffusion-annealed”); whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other metallic or nonmetallic substances; and less than or equal to 2.0 mm in nominal thickness. For purposes of this order, “nickel-based alloys” include all nickel alloys with other metals in which nickel accounts for at least 80 percent of the alloy by volume.

    Imports of merchandise included in the scope of this order are classified primarily under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7212.50.0000 and 7210.90.6000, but may also be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7210.70.6090, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7225.99.0090, or 7226.99.0180. The foregoing HTSUS subheadings are provided only for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Subsequent to the initiation of this administrative review, the Department received a timely submission from NSSMC certifying that it did not have sales, shipments, or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.6 To confirm NSSMC's no shipment claim, the Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requesting that it review NSSMC's no-shipment claim.7 CBP did not report that it had any information to contradict NSSMC's claim of no shipments during the POR.8 Therefore, we preliminarily determine that NSSMC had no shipments to the United States, and therefore, no reviewable entries, during the POR. In addition, we find it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to NSSMC, but, rather to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review, consistent with our practice.9

    6See Letter from NSSMC to the Department regarding “Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan: Certification on No U.S. Sales During Administrative Review Period,” dated August 5, 2016 and Letter from NSSMC to the Department regarding “Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan: Response to July 25, 2016 Department Questionnaire,” dated August 10, 2016.

    7See the Memorandum to the File from Dena Crossland, “Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan: No Shipments During the Period of Review from Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metals Corporation,” dated May 11, 2017.

    8Id.

    9See e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2012-2013, 79 FR 15951, 15952 (March 24, 2014), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Determination of No Shipments, and Partial Rescission of Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 51306 (August 28, 2014).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. For Toyo Kohan, export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products (Certain Nickel-Plated, Flat-Rolled Steel) from Japan; 2015-2016” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is issued concurrent with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that, for the period May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016, the following dumping margin exists:

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. 1.42
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days after the date of publication of this notice.10 Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department in response to these preliminary results no later than 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results.11 Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs.12

    10See 19 CFR 351.224(b)

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    12See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2).

    Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.13 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.14 In order to be properly filed, ACCESS must successfully receive an electronically-filed document in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties.15

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    14See generally 19 CFR 351.303.

    15See 19 CFR 351.303(f).

    Within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in the case and rebuttal briefs.16 Unless the Department specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs.17 Hearing requests should be electronically submitted to the Department via ACCESS.18 The Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, must successfully receive an electronically-filed document in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.19 Parties will be notified of the time and location of the hearing.

    16See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    17See 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1).

    18See generally, 19 CFR 351.303.

    19See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues addressed in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results, unless extended.20

    20See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.21 If Toyo Kohan's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for an importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If Toyo Kohan's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.” 22 The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

    21See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    22See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Toyo Kohan for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.23 In addition, if the Department determines that NSSMC had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under NSSMC's case number will be liquidated at the all-other's rate.24 The all-others rate is 45.42 percent.25 We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    23See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    24Id.

    25See Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products from Japan: Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 30816, 30817 (May 29, 2014) (Order).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Toyo Kohan will be that established in the final results of this administrative review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or in the less-than-fair value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate of 45.42 percent, which is the all-others rate established in the investigation.26 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    26See Order, 79 FR at 30817.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Dated: May 30, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Preliminary Finding of No Shipments V. Comparisons to Normal Value VI. Product Comparisons VII. Discussion of Methodology A. Determination of Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis C. Date of Sale D. Export Price E. Normal Value 1. Home Market Viability 2. Level of Trade 3. Sales to Affiliated Customers 4. Cost of Production Analysis 5. Cost of Production Test 6. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices 7. Price-to-Constructed Value Comparisons 8. Constructed Value F. Currency Conversion VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-11672 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-929] Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 10, 2017, The Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Based on the timely withdrawal of the requests for review of certain companies, we are now rescinding this administrative review for the period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017 with respect to 191 companies.

    DATES:

    Effective June 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis McClure or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-0131, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 8, 2017, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the PRC for the period of review (POR) February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.1

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 9709 (February 8, 2017).

    On February 28, 2017, SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite Co. (the petitioners) requested an administrative review of the order for 194 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise.2 On April 10, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China with respect to 194 companies.3 On April 21, 2017, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review for 191 out of 194 companies.4 See the Initiation Notice for the full list of companies for which the Department initiated a review. No other party requested an administrative review of this order.

    2See the petitioners' submission, “Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China—Request for Initiation of Antidumping Administrative Review,” dated February 28, 2017.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188 (April 10, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    4See the petitioners' submission, “Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners' Withdrawal of Certain Requests for Review and Respondent Selection Comments,” dated April 20, 2017.

    Partial Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioners timely withdrew their review request, in part, by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the PRC for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017, with respect to the 191 for which all review requests were withdrawn. The review will continue with respect to the remaining three companies: (1) Fangda Group; 5 (2) Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.; and (3) Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Products Co., Ltd.

    5 The Fangda Group consists of Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd., and Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We intend to issue and publish this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 31, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11670 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-813] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms (mushrooms) from India for the period of February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Effective June 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Johnson or Denisa Ursu, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-2285, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 8, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India for the period of February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017.1

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 9709 (February 8, 2017).

    On February 28 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from Himalya International Limited and Himalya International Inc. (collectively, Himalya) to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mushrooms from India manufactured and exported by Himalya International Limited.2

    2See Himalya's letter, “Preserved Mushrooms from India—Request for Administrative Review of Himalya International Inc & Himalya International Limited,” dated February 28, 2017.

    On April 10, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order.3 This administrative review covers Himalya during the period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. On May 16, 2017, Himalya timely withdrew its request for an administrative review.4

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188 (April 10, 2017).

    4See Himalya's letter, “Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Withdraw of Admin Review Request Made on February 28th, 2017” dated May 16, 2017.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Himalya withdrew its review request before the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. Therefore, in response to the timely withdrawal of the review request, the Department is rescinding in its entirety the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mushrooms from India for the review period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers whose entries will be liquidated as a result of this rescission notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 31, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11671 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-818] Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The period of review (POR) is December 29, 2014, through June 30, 2016. The Department preliminarily determines that Truong Vinh Ltd. (Truong Vinh), Rich State, Inc. (Rich State), and Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd. (Dicha Sombrilla) did not demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are, therefore, part of the Vietnam-wide entity. Further, because Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner) withdrew its request for review of eight companies, we are rescinding the administrative review with regard to them. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective June 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chelsey Simonovich or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1979 or (202) 482-6312, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On July 13, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from Vietnam.1 On July 5, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register an opportunity to request administrative review of the Order. 2 The Department received requests for a review of 11 companies.3 On September 12, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this review, covering the above-referenced companies.4 On September 28, 2016, the Department placed entry data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on the record of this review.5 On October 18, 2016, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaires to Truong Vinh and Rich State. On November 8, 2016, both companies, in a joint submission, stated that neither intended to respond to the Department's questionnaires.6

    1See Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 39994 (July 13, 2015) (the Order).

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 43584 (July 5, 2016).

    3See Letter from Amifast Corporation, “Amifast Corporation; Request for Administrative Review; Case No. A-522-818; Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” dated August 1, 2016. See also Letter from Petitioner, “Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Request for Administrative Reviews,” dated August 1, 2016. See also Letter from Olympic Manufacturing Group, “Request for Administrative Review and Request to Defer Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (A-552-818) (POR: December 29, 2014—June 30, 2016),” dated August 1, 2016. See also Letter from Truong Vinh, “Request for Administrative Review and Request to Defer Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (A-552-818) (POR: December 29, 2014—June 30, 2016),” dated August 1, 2016.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 62720 (September 12 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    5See Memorandum, “Certain Steel Nails from Vietnam: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information for 12/29/14-6/30/2016 Review Period,” dated September 28, 2016.

    6See Letter from Truong Vinh and Rich State, “Truong Vinh Ltd. and Rich State Inc., Questionnaire Response, First Annual Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (A-552-818),” dated November 8, 2016. Therein, Truong Vinh and Rich State indicated that they believe that their zinc anchors would be found outside of the scope of the Order based on an ongoing scope proceeding. As such, Truong Vinh and Rich State stated that they would not respond to the Department's October 18, 2016, request for information, and that this letter constituted their full response to sections A, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire. Neither company submitted a separate rate application.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails subject to this order are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject to this order also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7907.00.60.00, 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.7 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    7See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2014-2016: Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On October 5, 2016, the petitioner withdrew its request for review with respect to the following eight companies: Astrotech Steels Private Limited; Blue Moon Logistics Private Ltd.; Bollore Logistics Vietnam Co. Ltd.; Dahnay Logistics Private Ltd; FGS Logistics Co. Ltd.; Honour Lane Shipping Ltd; SDV Vietnam Co. Ltd.; and United Nail Products Co. Ltd.8 No other parties requested review of these eight companies. In response to the petitioner's timely filed withdrawal request, we are rescinding this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),9 with respect to the above-named companies.

    8See Petitioner's Review Request Withdrawal Letter.

    9See the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at the section entitled, “Partial Rescission of Administrative Review.”

    Vietnam-Wide Entity

    The Vietnam-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity.10 Because no party requested a review of the Vietnam-wide entity in this review, nor did the Department self-initiate a review of the Vietnam-wide entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate (i.e., 323.99 percent) is not subject to change. In this administrative review, a review was requested for Truong Vinh, Rich State, and Dicha Sombrilla, but none of these companies filed a separate rate application, separate rate certification, or no-shipment letter. Accordingly, the Department considers Truong Vinh, Rich State, and Dicha Sombrilla to be part of the Vietnam-wide entity.

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 29, 2014, through January 30, 2016:

    Company Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margins
  • (percent)
  • Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd 323.99 Rich State, Inc 323.99 Truong Vinh Ltd 323.99
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed for the preliminary results within five days of the publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department preliminarily applied the Vietnam-entity margin to the mandatory respondents in this administrative review, there are no calculations to disclose. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.11 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.12 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.13 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.14

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    12See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    14See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.15 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.16 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    15See 19 CFR 351.310(c)

    16See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.17 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess duties at the ad valorem margin rates published above. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. The Department will assess duties only on entries of subject merchandise (i.e., Vietnam-origin steel nails).

    17See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Truong Vinh, Rich State, and Dicha Sombrilla, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnam exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed period; (3) for all Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the NME-wide rate of 323.99 percent; and (4) for all non-Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnam exporter that supplied that non-Vietnam exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: May 24, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review 5. Discussion of the Methodology 6. Vietnam-Wide Entity 7. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-11668 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-955] Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain magnesia carbon bricks (MC Bricks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective June 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3586.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 9, 2016, based on a timely request for review by the Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee (Fair Trade Committee),1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the CVD order on MC Bricks from the PRC with respect to 18 companies for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.2 No other party requested an administrative review.

    1See Letter to the Secretary from the Fair Trade Committee, “Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review,” (September 30, 2016). The Fair Trade Committee is an ad hoc association comprised of the following U.S. producers of magnesia carbon bricks: Resco Products, Inc.; Magnesita Refractories Company; and HarbisonWalker International.

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 78778 (November 9, 2016) (November 2016 Initiation Notice); see also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 4294 (January 13, 2017), which corrected the misspelling of certain company names in the November 2016 Initiation Notice.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the Fair Trade Committee timely withdrew its request for review within the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the CVD order. Therefore, in response to the timely withdrawal of the request for review, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of the CVD order on MC Bricks from the PRC for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct CBP to assess CVD duties on all appropriate entries. Because this administrative review is being rescinded in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertain shall be assessed CVD duties that are equal to the cash deposits of estimated CVD duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notifications

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or the conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 31, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11674 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-501] Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products (welded pipe and tube) from Turkey. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2015, to April 30, 2016. This review covers 14 companies. The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review.” Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective June 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Baker or Chelsey Simonovich; AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2924 or 202-482-1979, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the notice of initiation of this administrative review 1 on July 7, 2016.2 This review covers 14 companies: Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (Borusan Istikbal) and Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan Mannesmann) (collectively, Borusan); 3 Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., and Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S. (Toscelik Metal) (collectively, Toscelik); 4 Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic (Borusan Birlesik); Borusan Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S. (Borusan Gemlik); Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S. (Borusan Ihracat); Borusan Ithicat ve Dagitim A.S. (Borusan Ithicat); Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation (Tubeco); Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan); and Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S., Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S., and Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively, the Yucel Group).

    1 Wheatland Tube Company, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret requested the instant administrative review.

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 44265 (July 7, 2016) (Initiation Notice); see also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 53122 (August 11, 2016).

    3 In prior segments of this proceeding, we treated Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. as a single entity. See, e.g., Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014, 80 FR 76674, 76674 n.2 (December 10, 2015) (Welded Pipe and Tube from Turkey 2013-2014). We preliminarily determine that there is no evidence on the record for altering our treatment of Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S., as a single entity. The record does not support treating the following companies as part of the Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. entity: (1) Borusan Birlesik; (2) Borusan Gemlik; (3) Borusan Ihracat; (4) Borusan Ithicat; and (5)Tubeco. Accordingly, as discussed infra, each of these five companies will be assigned the rate applicable to companies not selected for individual examination in this review.

    4 In prior segments of this proceeding, we treated Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., and Toscelik Metal as a single entity. See, e.g., Welded Pipe and Tube from Turkey 2013-2014. We preliminarily determine that there is no evidence on the record for altering our treatment of Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., and Tosceilk Metal as a single entity. The petitioners requested a review of Toscelik Metal, and there has been no withdrawal of that request. Therefore, Toscelik Metal will be reviewed as part of the single entity Toscelik.

    On May 11, 2017, the Department extended the deadline for issuing its preliminary results of this administrative review to May 31, 2017.5 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.6 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    5See Memorandum, “Circular Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated May 11, 2017.

    6See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey; 2015-2016” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is welded pipe and tube. The welded pipe and tube subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheading 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    On July 18, 2016, Erbosan submitted a letter to the Department certifying that it had no sales, shipments, or entries of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.7 Erbosan further certified that it did not know or have reason to know that any of its customers would subsequently export or sell Erbosan's merchandise to the United States during the POR. On August 8, 2016, Borusan Istikbal, Borusan Birlesik, Borusan Gemlik, Borusan Ihracat, Borusan Ithicat, and Tubeco submitted letters to the Department certifying that they each individually had no sales, shipments, or entries of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.8 On May 1, 2017, consistent with our practice, the Department issued a “No Shipment Inquiry” to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to confirm that there were no entries of welded pipe and tube from Turkey exported by Erbosan, Borusan Istikbal, Borusan Birlesik, Borusan Gemlik, Borusan Ihracat, Borusan Ithicat, or Tubeco during the POR.9 We received no information from CBP contrary to the claims ofthese companies.

    7See Letter from Erbosan, Re: No Shipment Certification of Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. in the 2015-2016 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Involving Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, dated July 18, 2016.

    8See Letter from Borusan Istikbal, Borusan Birlesik, Borusan Gemlik, Borusan Iharcat, Borusan Ithicat, and Tubeco, Re: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Case No. A-489-501: No Shipment Letter, dated August 8, 2016.

    9See CBP message number 7121305, dated May 1, 2017.

    Based on the foregoing, we preliminarily determine that Erbosan, Borusan Birlesik, Borusan Gemlik, Borusan Ihracat, Borusan Ithicat, and Tubeco each had no shipments during the POR. Also, consistent with our practice, the Department finds that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to these six companies, but rather to complete the review with respect to them, and to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.10 Thus, if we continue to find that Erbosan, Borusan Birlesik, Borusan Gemlik, Borusan Ihracat, Borusan Ithicat, and Tubeco had no shipments of subject merchandise in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of subject merchandise produced by them, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.11

    10See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    11See, e.g., Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).

    Furthermore, as noted above, Borusan Istikbal also submitted a no-shipment certification on August 8, 2017. However, we continue to find Borusan Istikbal to be part of the single entity, Borusan, and we find no record evidence that warrants altering this treatment. Therefore, because we find Borusan to have had shipments during this POR, we have not made a preliminary determination of no-shipments with respect to Borusan Istikbal.

    Rates for Non-Examined Companies

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}”

    In this review, we have preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for Borusan that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily assigned to the companies not individually examined (i.e., the Yucel Group) the 1.35 percent weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Borusan.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margins for the period May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016 are as follows:

    Producer or exporter Weighted-average dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S 1.35 Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S./Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S./Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S 0.00 Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S 1.35 Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S 1.35 Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S 1.35
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.12 Interested parties may submit cases briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.13 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the due date for filing case briefs.14 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.15 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.16

    12See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    14See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    15See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    16See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.17 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.

    17See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    In order to be properly filed, all ACCESS submissions must successfully receive an electronically filed document in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

    Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    If either Borusan's or Toscelik's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where either a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the methodology described in the “Rate for Non-Examined Companies” section, above.

    With respect to Erbosan, Borusan Birlesik, Borusan Gemlik, Borusan Ihracat, Borusan Ithicat, and Tubeco, if we continue to find that these companies had no shipments of subject merchandise in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by these companies, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.18

    18See, e.g., Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Toscelik will be zero, unless there is change in Toscelik's dumping margin in the final results of this review; (2) the cash deposit rate for Borusan will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (3) for other manufacturers and exporters covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (4) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (5) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 14.74 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.19 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    19See Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 51 FR 17784 (May 15, 1986).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requir