Federal Register Vol. 82, No.113,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 113 (June 14, 2017)

Page Range27105-27402
FR Document

82_FR_113
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 27322 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the DTC Settlement Service Guide To Make Technical Revisions To Clarify and Provide Enhanced Transparency With Respect to the Calculation and Adjustment of Required Participants Fund DepositsPDF
82 FR 27289 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 27229 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From Spain: Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 27227 - EU-U.S. Privacy Shield; Invitation for Applications for Inclusion on the List of ArbitratorsPDF
82 FR 27297 - In the Matter of Florida Power & Light Company (Turkey Point Units 6 and 7)PDF
82 FR 27144 - Spirotetramat; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 27254 - Final Test Guideline; Product Performance Test Guidelines; OCSPP 810.3900 Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug Pesticide Products; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 27149 - Isofetamid; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
82 FR 27255 - Human Studies Review Board; Notification of Public MeetingsPDF
82 FR 27287 - Webinar Meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile JusticePDF
82 FR 27133 - Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Further Delay of Effective DatePDF
82 FR 27258 - Availability of Program Application Instructions for MIPPA Program FundsPDF
82 FR 27154 - Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental CategoryPDF
82 FR 27294 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Boric Acid Storage Tank ChangesPDF
82 FR 27292 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Boric Acid Storage Tank ChangesPDF
82 FR 27291 - Information Collection: 10 CFR Part 4, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Commission ProgramsPDF
82 FR 27326 - Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee-ReestablishmentPDF
82 FR 27268 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Disclosures in Professional and Consumer Prescription Drug PromotionPDF
82 FR 27259 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Color Additive Certification Requests and RecordkeepingPDF
82 FR 27263 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Records Access Requirements for Food FacilitiesPDF
82 FR 27265 - Request for Nominations on Device Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 27222 - Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities: Revisions to Case-Mix Methodology; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 27261 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; HETLIOZPDF
82 FR 27266 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; NEUROPACE RNS SYSTEMPDF
82 FR 27116 - Safety Zone; Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port ZonePDF
82 FR 27112 - Anchorage Grounds; Lower Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA, Including South and Southwest Passes; New Orleans, LAPDF
82 FR 27217 - Review of RegulationsPDF
82 FR 27252 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
82 FR 27236 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
82 FR 27286 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 27287 - Uranium From Russia; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 27285 - Paper Clips From China; Cancellation of Hearing for Full Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 27238 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibited Species Donation ProgramPDF
82 FR 27266 - Request for Nominations of Voting Members on a Public Advisory Committee; National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 27274 - New Date for the October 2017 Customs Broker's License ExaminationPDF
82 FR 27331 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Fiduciary Statement in Support of AppointmentPDF
82 FR 27332 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Community Residential Care Recordkeeping RequirementsPDF
82 FR 27334 - Centralized Partnership Audit RegimePDF
82 FR 27223 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 6 to the Tilefish Fishery Management PlanPDF
82 FR 27325 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling FellowshipPDF
82 FR 27233 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 27224 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 27230 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 27226 - Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 27300 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 27271 - Data and Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Opioid Formulations With Properties Designed To Deter Abuse in the Postmarket Setting: A Scientific Discussion of Present and Future Capabilities; Public Workshop; Issues Paper; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 27282 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 27284 - Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, NDPDF
82 FR 27255 - Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment: Tarik Afif Chaouch v. Demetrios Air Freight Co., Demetrios International Shipping Co., Inc., and Troy Container Line LtdPDF
82 FR 27240 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Chevron Richmond Refinery Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project in San Francisco Bay, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 27281 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, Fort Wayne, INPDF
82 FR 27279 - Notice of Inventory Completion: San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner, San Bernardino, CAPDF
82 FR 27279 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, ILPDF
82 FR 27282 - Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZPDF
82 FR 27283 - Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIPDF
82 FR 27278 - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 2015 Integrated Resource Management Plan for the Colville Indian Reservation, Nespelem, WashingtonPDF
82 FR 27253 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of MinnesotaPDF
82 FR 27116 - Safety Zone; Potomac River, Newburg, MDPDF
82 FR 27110 - Special Local Regulation; Breakers to Bridge Paddle Festival, Lake Superior, Keweenaw Waterway, MIPDF
82 FR 27252 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Request for Title IV Reimbursement or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 (HCM2)PDF
82 FR 27288 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Petition for Classifying Labor Surplus AreasPDF
82 FR 27105 - Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Electronic System Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal AccessPDF
82 FR 27107 - Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Electronic-System Security Protection From Unauthorized External AccessPDF
82 FR 27328 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Automobile or Other Conveyance and Adaptive EquipmentPDF
82 FR 27331 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Request for Contact InformationPDF
82 FR 27329 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Statement of Person Claiming To Have Stood in Relation of ParentPDF
82 FR 27327 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Financial StatementPDF
82 FR 27328 - Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review: Compliance Inspection ReportPDF
82 FR 27330 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Request for and Consent To Release of Information From Claimant's RecordsPDF
82 FR 27256 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 27296 - Virginia Electric and Power Company; North Anna Unit 3PDF
82 FR 27297 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
82 FR 27108 - Wassenaar Arrangement 2015 Plenary Agreements Implementation, Removal of Foreign National Review Requirements, and Information Security Updates; CorrectionsPDF
82 FR 27295 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 27318 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Merge the OpenView Depth-of-Book Product Into TotalViewPDF
82 FR 27307 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rule G-26, on Customer Account Transfers, To Modernize the Rule and Promote a Uniform Customer Account Transfer StandardPDF
82 FR 27315 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 5110(c) To Permit a Reverse Merger Company To Qualify for Initial Listing Under Any Applicable Listing Standard After Satisfying the Required Seasoning PeriodPDF
82 FR 27327 - Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee June 21, 2017, Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 27280 - Minor Boundary Revision at Wilson's Creek National BattlefieldPDF
82 FR 27274 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 27302 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To List and Trade of Shares of the IQ Municipal Insured ETF, IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF, and IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
82 FR 27322 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 27300 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 27251 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 27236 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 27237 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 27238 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 27218 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by the Department of Homeland Security System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 27235 - District Export Council Nomination OpportunityPDF
82 FR 27289 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27290 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27324 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Items: Is Fashion Modern?” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 27326 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “PDF
82 FR 27273 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 27273 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 27118 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Update to Materials Incorporated by ReferencePDF
82 FR 27125 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Sources PermitsPDF
82 FR 27257 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 27221 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Nonattainment New Source ReviewPDF
82 FR 27122 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Nonattainment New Source ReviewPDF
82 FR 27121 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
82 FR 27127 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Regional Haze Progress Report State Implementation PlanPDF
82 FR 27325 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Secretary of Defense on Institution Capacity Building ProgramsPDF
82 FR 27326 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 27324 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Washington; AmendmentPDF
82 FR 27178 - WRC-12 Implementation Report and OrderPDF
82 FR 27219 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF

Issue

82 113 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Contents Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27256-27257 2017-12272 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities: Revisions to Case-mix Methodology, 27222-27223 2017-12324 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27257-27258 2017-12229 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Anchorage Grounds: Lower Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA, Including South and Southwest Passes; New Orleans, LA, 27112-27116 2017-12320 Safety Zones: Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, AZ) and Headgate Dam (Parker, AZ) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 27116 2017-12321 Potomac River, Newburg, MD, 27116-27118 2017-12285 Special Local Regulations: Breakers to Bridge Paddle Festival, Lake Superior, Keweenaw Waterway, MI, 27110-27112 2017-12284 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Program Application Instructions for MIPPA Program Funds, 27258-27259 2017-12339 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: Federal Advisory Committees, 27252 2017-12318 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Request for Title IV Reimbursement or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2, 27252-27253 2017-12283 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Further Delay of Effective Date, 27133-27144 2017-12340 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Sources Permits, 27125-27127 2017-12235 New Mexico; Regional Haze Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 27127-27133 2017-12208 Oklahoma; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 27121-27122 2017-12209 Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Nonattainment New Source Review, 27122-27125 2017-12210 West Virginia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference, 27118-27120 2017-12236 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Dental Category, 27154-27178 2017-12338 Pesticide Tolerances: Isofetamid, 27149-27154 2017-12346 Spirotetramat, 27144-27149 2017-12348 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Nonattainment New Source Review, 27221-27222 2017-12211 NOTICES Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Minnesota, 27253 2017-12287 Final Test Guideline; Product Performance Test Guidelines; Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug Pesticide Products, 27254-27255 2017-12347 Meetings: Human Studies Review Board, 27255 2017-12345 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Electronic-System Security Protection From Unauthorized External Access, 27107-27108 2017-12280 Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Electronic System Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal Access, 27105-27106 2017-12281 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 27219-27221 2017-09846 NOTICES Reestablishment: Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, 27326 2017-12331 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES WRC-12 Implementation Report and Order, 27178-27216 2017-09887 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Complaints: Tarik Afif Chaouch v. Demetrios Air Freight Co., Demetrios International Shipping Co., Inc., and Troy Container Line Ltd, 27255-27256 2017-12296 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Color Additive Certification Requests and Recordkeeping, 27259-27261 2017-12328 Disclosures in Professional and Consumer Prescription Drug Promotion, 27268-27271 2017-12329 Recordkeeping and Records Access Requirements for Food Facilities, 27263-27265 2017-12327 Determinations of Regulatory Review Periods for Purposes of Patent Extensions: HETLIOZ, 27261-27263 2017-12323 NEUROPACE RNS SYSTEM, 27266-27268 2017-12322 Meetings: Data and Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Opioid Formulations With Properties Designed To Deter Abuse in the Postmarket Setting: A Scientific Discussion of Present and Future Capabilities; Public Workshop; Issues Paper, 27271-27273 2017-12299 Requests for Nominations: Device Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee, 27265-27266 2017-12326 Voting Members; National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee, 27266 2017-12312 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act; Implementation of Exemptions, 27218-27219 2017-12253 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 27274-27277 2017-12262
Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: 2015 Integrated Resource Management Plan for the Colville Indian Reservation, Nespelem, WA, 27278 2017-12288 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Wassenaar Arrangement 2015 Plenary Agreements Implementation, Removal of Foreign National Review Requirements, and Information Security Updates; Corrections, 27108-27110 2017-12269 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Centralized Partnership Audit Regime, 27334-27402 2017-12308 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27326-27327 2017-11950 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China, 27224-27226 2017-12303 Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China, 27226-27227 2017-12301 Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From Spain, 27229-27230 2017-12404 Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China, 27230-27233 2017-12302 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico, 27233-27235 2017-12304 Requests for Applications: Inclusion on the List of Arbitrators; EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, 27227-27229 2017-12370 Requests for Nominations: District Export Council, 27235-27236 2017-12250 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Backpack Chairs, 27286 2017-12316 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Paper Clips From China, 27285 2017-12314 Uranium From Russia, 27287 2017-12315 Justice Department Justice Department See

Justice Programs Office

Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice; Webinar, 27287-27288 2017-12341 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Petition for Classifying Labor Surplus Areas, 27288-27289 2017-12282 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 27289 2017-12467 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27289-27291 2017-12248 2017-12249 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 27273 2017-12239 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 2017-12240 27273-27274 2017-12241 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Tilefish Fishery Management Plan Amendment 6, 27223 2017-12307 NOTICES Exempted Fishing Permit; Applications, 27236 2017-12317 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Prohibited Species Donation Program, 27238-27240 2017-12313 Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 27236-27237 2017-12256 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 27237-27238 2017-12254 2017-12255 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 27251-27252 2017-12257 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Chevron Richmond Refinery Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project in San Francisco Bay, CA, 27240-27251 2017-12295 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Boundary Revisions: Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, 27280-27281 2017-12263 Inventory Completions: Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society, Fort Wayne, IN, 27281-27282 2017-12294 Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR; Correction, 27282 2017-12298 San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner, San Bernardino, CA, 27279-27280 2017-12293 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 27283-27284 2017-12290 Repatriation of Cultural Items: Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, 27279 2017-12292 Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ, 27282-27283 2017-12291 State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, 27284-27285 2017-12297 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Commission Programs, 27291-27292 2017-12333 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards: Florida Power and Light Co., 27297 2017-12358 Combined Licenses: Virginia Electric and Power Co; North Anna Unit 3, 27296-27297 2017-12271 Exemptions and Combined Licenses; Amendments: South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., South Carolina Public Service Authority, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Boric Acid Storage Tank Changes, 27294-27295 2017-12337 Southern Nuclear Operating Co.Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Boric Acid Storage Tank Changes, 27292-27294 2017-12335 Exemptions: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Independent; Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 27297-27300 2017-12270 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on APR1400, 27295-27296 2017-12268 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 27300 2017-12300 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 27300-27302 2017-12258 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 27322-27324 2017-12259 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 27307-27315 2017-12266 NYSE Arca, Inc., 27302-27307 2017-12260 The Depository Trust Co., 27322 C1--2017--11151 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 27315-27318 2017-12265 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 27318-27322 2017-12267 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: State of Washington; Amendment 1, 27324 2017-11181 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling Fellowship, 27325 2017-12306 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Early Roman Sculpture, 27326 2017-12246 Items: Is Fashion Modern?, 27324-27325 2017-12247 Delegations of Authority, 27325 2017-12195 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

See

United States Mint

PROPOSED RULES Review of Regulations, 27217-27218 2017-12319
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES October 2017 Customs Broker's License Examination, 27274 2017-12311 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Meetings: Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, 27327 2017-12264 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Automobile or Other Conveyance and Adaptive Equipment, 27328 2017-12279 Community Residential Care Recordkeeping Requirements, 27332 2017-12309 Compliance Inspection Report, 27328-27329 2017-12275 Consent to Release of Information from Claimant's Records, 27330-27331 2017-12274 Fiduciary Statement in Support of Appointment, 27331-27332 2017-12310 Financial Statement, 27327-27328 2017-12276 Request for Contact Information, 27331 2017-12278 Statement of Person Claiming to Have Stood in Relation of Parent, 27329-27330 2017-12277 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 27334-27402 2017-12308 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.

82 113 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0239; Special Conditions No. 25-690-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Electronic System Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal Access AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. (Embraer) Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a digital-systems network architecture requiring isolation or protection from unauthorized internal access. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Embraer on June 14, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0239 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1298; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On September 13, 2013, Embraer applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A57NM to include the new Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. The Model ERJ 190-300 airplane, which is a derivative of the Embraer Model ERJ 190-100 STD airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No. A57NM, is a 97- to 114-passenger transport-category airplane, designed with a new wing with a high aspect ratio and raked wingtip, and a new electrical-distribution system. The maximum take-off weight is 124,340 lbs (56,400 kg).

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Embraer must show that the Model ERJ 190-300 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A57NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

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

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

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

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: A digital-systems network architecture requiring isolation or protection from unauthorized internal access.

Discussion

Networks, both in safety-related and non-safety-related applications, have been implemented in existing commercial-production airplanes. However, network security considerations and functions have played a relatively minor role in the certification of such systems because of the isolation, protection mechanisms, and limited connectivity between these networks.

To provide an understanding of the airplane electronic equipment, systems, and assets, these special conditions use the concept of domains. However, this does not prescribe any particular architecture.

The aircraft-control domain consists of the airplane electronic systems, equipment, instruments, networks, servers, software and hardware components, databases, etc., which are part of the type design of the airplane and are installed in the airplane to enable the safe operation of the airplane. These can also be referred to as flight-safety-related systems, and include flight controls, communication, display, monitoring, navigation, and related systems.

The operator-information domain generally consists of functions that the airplane operator manages or controls, such as administrative functions and cabin-support functions.

The passenger-entertainment domain consists of all functions required to provide the passengers with information and entertainment systems.

The Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane design introduces the potential for access to the aircraft-control domain and airline-information-services domain by unauthorized persons through the passenger-information-services domain; and the security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of viruses, worms, user mistakes, and intentional sabotage of airplane networks, systems, and databases.

For electronic systems-and-assets security in these domains, the level of protection provided against security threats should be based on a security-risk assessment, noting that the level of protection could differ between domains and within domains, depending on the security threat. For each security vulnerability and airplane electronic asset, Embraer should identify in which domain the asset will be addressed.

In addition, the operating systems for current airplane systems are usually and historically proprietary. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to corruption from worms, viruses, and other malicious actions as are more-widely used commercial operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows, because access to the design details of these proprietary operating systems is limited to the system developer and airplane integrator. Some systems installed on the Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane will use operating systems that are widely used and commercially available from third-party software suppliers. The security vulnerabilities of these operating systems may be more widely known than are the vulnerabilities of proprietary operating systems that the avionics manufacturers currently use.

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

Applicability

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

Conclusion

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

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

1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic-system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations.

2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security safeguards.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 2, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12281 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0238; Special Conditions No. 25-689-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Electronic-System Security Protection From Unauthorized External Access AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. (Embraer) ERJ 190-300 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. These airplanes will have a digital-systems network architecture composed of several connected networks that may allow access to or by external computer systems and networks, and may result in airplane electronic system-security vulnerabilities. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Embraer on June 14, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0238 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1298; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On September 13, 2013, Embraer applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A57NM to include the new Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. The Model ERJ 190-300 airplane, which is a derivative of the Embraer Model ERJ 190-100 STD airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No. A57NM, is a 97- to 114-passenger transport-category airplane, designed with a new wing with a high aspect ratio and raked wingtip, and a new electrical-distribution system. The maximum take-off weight is 124,340 lbs (56,400 kg).

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Embraer must show that the Model ERJ 190-300 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A57NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

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

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

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

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

A digital-systems network architecture composed of several connected networks. This network architecture and network configuration will have the capability to allow access to or by external network sources, and may be used for or interfaced with a diverse set of functions, including:

• Flight-safety-related control, communication, and navigation systems (airplane-control domain);

• Operator business and administrative support (operator-information domain); and

• Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger-entertainment domain)

Discussion

The Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane's digital-systems network architecture is novel or unusual for commercial transport airplanes as it allows connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from sources external to the airplane (e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, Internet connectivity, service-provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the previously isolated airplane electronic assets. Airplane electronic assets include electronic equipment and systems, instruments, networks, servers, software and electronic components, field-loadable software and hardware applications, databases, etc. This proposed design may result in network security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems required for the safety, operation, and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of digital-system architectures, nor access to airplane systems. Furthermore, 14 CFR part 25, and current system-safety assessment policy and techniques, do not address potential security vulnerabilities by unauthorized access to airplane data busses and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are issued to ensure that the security, integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data busses and networks.

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

Applicability

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for electronic system-security protection from unauthorized external access on Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 airplanes.

1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane electronic systems are protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.

2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system-security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system-security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.

3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system-security safeguards.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 2, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12280 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 740 and 774 [Docket No. 160217120-7396-02] RIN 0694-AG85 Wassenaar Arrangement 2015 Plenary Agreements Implementation, Removal of Foreign National Review Requirements, and Information Security Updates; Corrections AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains, as part of its Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the Commerce Control List (CCL), which identifies certain items subject to Department of Commerce jurisdiction. This rule corrects citations, replaces text that was inadvertently removed, and corrects other errors associated with the “Wassenaar Arrangement 2015 Plenary Agreements Implementation, Removal of Foreign National Review Requirements, and Information Security Updates” final rule published on September 20, 2016 (WA15 rule).

DATES:

This rule is effective: June 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For general questions contact Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce at 202-482 2440 or by email: [email protected]

For technical questions contact: Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, Information Technology Control Division, Aaron Amundson at 202-482-0707.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On September 20, 2016, BIS published a final rule entitled, “Wassenaar Arrangement 2015 Plenary Agreements Implementation, Removal of Foreign National Review Requirements, and Information Security Updates” (81 FR 64656-64692), (WA15 rule). The Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies is a group of 41 like-minded states committed to promoting responsibility and transparency in the global arms trade, and preventing destabilizing accumulations of arms. As a Participating State, the United States has committed to controlling for export all items on the WA control lists. The lists were first established in 1996 and have been revised annually thereafter. Proposals for changes to the WA control lists that achieve consensus are approved by Participating States at annual Plenary meetings. Participating States are charged with implementing the agreed list changes as soon as possible after approval. The United States' implementation of WA list changes ensures U.S. companies have a level playing field with their competitors in other WA Participating States. This rule affects three sections of the EAR by correcting citations, replacing text that was inadvertently removed, and correcting other errors associated with the publication of the September 20th WA15 rule.

Part 740—License Exceptions, § 740.13 Technology and Software Unrestricted (TSU)

The introductory paragraph of § 740.13 (License Exception TSU) of the EAR is corrected by removing the reference to “encryption source code (and corresponding object code) that would be considered publicly available under § 734.3(b)(3) of the EAR,” because the publicly available provisions for encryption were moved to § 742.15(b) in the WA15 rule. This action also adds to the introductory paragraph a reference to “release of technology and source code in the United States by U.S. universities to their bona fide and full time regular employees” as that authorization was added in § 740.13(f) of the EAR by the initial implementation rule (78 FR 22718), April 16, 2013.

Part 740—License Exceptions, § 740.17 Encryption Commodities, Software, and Technology (ENC)

This correcting action makes three changes to § 740.17 of the EAR, as described below.

In § 740.17, a Note that was inadvertently removed by the WA15 rule is added to introductory paragraph (b). The Note was omitted by error when the mass market provisions were moved from § 742.15(b) to § 740.17(b) in order to consolidate these provisions in one place.

Also in § 740.17, paragraph (b)(2)(i) is amended by replacing the incorrect reference to non-existing paragraph (a)(i)(A) and adding in its place the correct reference to paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A).

Supplement No. 3 to Part 774 (Statements of Understanding)

This correction rule amends the Notes to paragraph (a) by revising paragraph (6) to replace the reference to Note 1 to Category 5, Part II with a reference to Supplement No. 2 to part 774 of the EAR because Note 1 to Category 5, Part II was removed by the WA15 rule and replaced with the Supp. No. 2 reference.

Export Administration Act

Although the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, expired on August 21, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” as defined under Executive Order 12866.

2. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

3. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a 30-day delay in effective date (5 U.S.C. 553) are inapplicable, because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Immediate implementation of these amendments fulfills the United States' international obligation to the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement). The Wassenaar Arrangement contributes to international security and regional stability by promoting greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations of such items. The Wassenaar Arrangement consists of 41 member countries that act on a consensus basis, and the changes set forth in this action make technical corrections to regulations implementing agreements reached at the December 2015 plenary session of the Wassenaar Arrangement. Because the United States is a significant exporter of the items covered by this rule, implementation of this rule is necessary for the Wassenaar Arrangement to achieve its purpose. Any delay in implementation will create a disruption in the movement of affected items globally, because of disharmony between export control measures implemented by Wassenaar Arrangement members, resulting in tension between member countries. Export controls work best when all countries implement the same export controls in a timely manner. Delaying this rulemaking to allow for notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effectiveness would prevent the United States from fulfilling its commitment to the Wassenaar Arrangement in a timely manner, and would injure the credibility of the United States in this and other multilateral regimes.

In addition, issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking would be inappropriate and contrary to the public interest in this instance, as this rule is merely making corrections to a previously published final rule.

Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this final rule are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th and Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 2099, Washington, DC 20230.

4. Because this action merely makes technical correcting amendments to the previously published WA15 final rule, the analysis required by the the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that is contained in the WA15 final rule continues to apply to the regulatory text that is corrected by this action, and no additional analysis is necessary.

List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 740

Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

15 CFR Part 774

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, parts 740 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:

PART 740 [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 740 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016).

2. Section 740.13 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
§ 740.13 Technology and Software—unrestricted (TSU).

This license exception authorizes exports and reexports of operation technology and software; sales technology and software; software updates (bug fixes); “mass market” software subject to the General Software Note; and release of technology and source code in the United States by U.S. universities to their bona fide and full time regular employees. Note that encryption software subject to the EAR is not subject to the General Software Note (see paragraph (d)(2) of this section).

3. In § 740.17: a. Paragraph (b) introductory text is amended by adding a Note to the paragraph; and b. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) is amended by removing the reference “paragraph (a)(i)(A)” and adding in its place “paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)”.

The addition reads as follows:

§ 740.17 Encryption commodities, software, and technology (ENC).

(b) * * *

Note to paragraph (b) introductory text: Mass market encryption software that would be considered publicly available under § 734.3(b)(3) of the EAR, and is authorized for export under this paragraph (b), remains subject to the EAR until all applicable classification or self-classification requirements set forth in this section are fulfilled.

PART 774 [AMENDED] 4. The authority citation for part 774 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016).

Supplement No. 3 to Part 774 [Amended] 5. In Supplement No. 3 to part 774, the Notes to paragraph (a) are amended by revising paragraph (6) to read as follows: Supplement No. 3 to Part 774—Statements of Understanding

(a) * * *

Notes to Paragraph (a): * * *

(6) For commodities and software “specially designed” for medical end-use that incorporate an encryption or other “information security” item subject to the EAR, see also section 3 (General “Information Security” Note (GISN)) to Supplement No. 2 to this part.

Dated: June 7, 2017. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-12269 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0170] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Breakers to Bridge Paddle Festival, Lake Superior, Keweenaw Waterway, MI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent special local regulation on Lake Superior within the Keweenaw Waterway for the annual Breakers to Bridge Paddle Festival. This annual event historically occurs within the first 2 weeks of September and lasts for 1 day. This action is necessary to safeguard the participants and spectators on the water in a portion of the Keweenaw Waterway between the North Entry and the Portage Lake Lift Bridge located in Houghton, MI. This regulation will functionally restrict all vessel speeds while within a designated no-wake zone, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) or a designated representative. The area forming the subject of this permanent special local regulation is described below.

DATES:

This rule is effective July 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0170 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 Lieutenant John Mack, Waterways management, MSU Duluth, Coast Guard; telephone 218-725-3818, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port Duluth 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, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On March 30, 2017 the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register (82 FR 15662) entitled “Special Local Regulation; Breakers to Bridge Paddle Festival, Lake Superior, Keweenaw Waterway, MI.” The NPRM proposed to establish a no-wake zone within the Keweenaw Waterway on an annual basis during the Breakers to Bridge Paddle Festival, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. The aforementioned NPRM was open for comment for 30 days, in which no comments were received.

III. 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 in the NPRM.

This rule creates a permanent special local regulation in the Keweenaw Waterway for the annual Breakers to Bridge Paddle Festival that historically takes place in the within the first two weeks of September. The no-wake zone will be enforced on all vessels entering a portion of the Keweenaw Waterway beginning at the North Entry at position 47°14′03″ N., 088°37′53″ W.; and ending at the Portage Lake Lift Bridge at position 47°07′25″ N., 088°34′26″ W. All vessels transiting through the no-wake zone will be required to travel at an appropriate rate of speed that does not create a wake except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) or a designated representative. The precise times and date of enforcement for this special local regulation will be determined annually.

The COTP will use all appropriate means to notify the public when the special local regulation in this rule will be enforced. Such means may include publication in the Federal Register a Notice of Enforcement, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and Local Notice to Mariners. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

IV. 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

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. E.O.13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it.

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the Special Local Regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit through the no-wake zone which will impact only a portion of the Keweenaw Waterway between the North Entry and the Portage Lake Lift Bridge located in Houghton, MI during a time of year when commercial vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16.

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 through the no-wake 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.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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. 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 would 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 made a preliminary determination 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 no-wake zone being enforced for no more than 6 hours along a prescribed route between the North Entry & Portage Lake Lift Bridge within the Keweenaw Waterway in Michigan. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination 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 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 § 100.170 to read as follows:
§ 100.170 Special Local Regulation; Breakers to Bridge Paddle Festival, Lake Superior, Keweenaw Waterway, MI.

(a) Location. All navigable waters of the Keweenaw Waterway beginning at the North Entry at position 47°14′03″ N., 088°37′53″ W.; and ending at the Portage Lake Lift Bridge at position 47°07′25″ N., 088°34′26″ W.

(b) Effective period. This annual event historically occurs within the first or second week of September. The Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) will announce enforcement dates via Notice of Enforcement, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, on-scene designated representatives, or other means of outreach.

(c) Regulations. Vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake speed except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated on-scene representative. Additionally, vessels shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and shall follow directions given by event representatives during the event.

Dated: June 8, 2017. E.E. Williams, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2017-12284 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2014-0991] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Grounds; Lower Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA, Including South and Southwest Passes; New Orleans, LA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Interim rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is amending anchorage regulations for the Lower Mississippi River below Baton Rouge. This amendment will modify Cedar Grove Anchorage and White Castle Anchorage, and will establish two new anchorages, Point Michel Anchorage and Plaquemines Point Anchorage, on the Lower Mississippi River, Above Head of Passes. This interim rule increases the available anchorage areas necessary to accommodate vessel traffic; improves navigation safety, providing for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce; and aids and assists the economy through increased anchorage capacity, streamlining vessel throughput and increasing ship to port interactions. We invite your comments on this rule.

DATES:

This rule is effective on June 14, 2017. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-0991 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this interim rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Howard Vacco, Waterways Management Division, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (504) 365-2281, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LCDR Lieutenant Commander LNM Local Notices to Mariners LWRP Low Water Reference Plane MNSA Maritime Navigation Safety Association ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard establishes anchorage grounds under authority in 33 U.S.C. 471. As stated in title 33 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 109.05 (33 CFR 109.05), this authority has been delegated to U.S. Coast Guard District Commanders. On April 3, 2015, the Coast Guard published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register (FR) (80 FR 18175) proposing to expand existing and establish new anchorages. An ANPRM is used to test a proposal or solicit ideas, involving interested persons in a potential regulatory action before issuing a formal rulemaking or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). An agency is not required to publish an ANPRM but may choose to do so.

The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without the prior notice and opportunity to comment through the NPRM process, 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 through the NPRM process 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 NPRM with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This rule will reduce vessel traffic congestion, and decrease the distance between anchorages during the most congested and demanding navigation period. This rule will also assist in maintaining safe navigation and movement of commerce during the high water and increased current conditions present now on the Lower Mississippi River. Delaying implementation of this rule would deny a safer working environment for all mariners utilizing the waterway. Soliciting and responding to comments on an NPRM would delay the margin of safety these new and additional anchorage areas have to offer both the mariners and the port until after the most congested and demanding time of the year—see additional details of hazards and risks in Purpose and Legal Basis section below. This interim rule follows an ANPRM requesting public participation and comments to better assess the need for additional anchorage areas. Comments to the ANPRM included support for additional anchorage areas in general, constructive suggestions, and a request to expand an additional anchorage. Zero comments opposed the new anchorage areas as proposed in the ANPRM. Additionally, the Coast Guard seeks to receive comment while this interim rule is in effect during the most congested and demanding time of the year.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date to provide a full 30 days' notice is impracticable. Immediate implementation is needed to provide a safer working environment for all mariners utilizing this waterway.

III. Purpose and Legal Basis

The Coast Guard received requests from the Crescent River Port Pilots' Association and the New Orleans Baton Rouge River Pilots Association to amend an existing anchorage and establish two new anchorages. These requests were presented and discussed at a Maritime Navigation Safety Association (MNSA) meeting on August 12, 2014 and at a Port Safety Council Meeting on September 10, 2014. Attendees at those meetings did not comment on or object to the requests presented. The Coast Guard received a subsequent request, via a comment to the April 3, 2015 ANPRM, requesting expansion of an additional anchorage. The Coast Guard also observed that during grain season, typically occurring annually from December through May, the anchorages were at maximum capacity. This creates a hazardous condition as vessels experiencing a casualty had no safe anchorage to stop in and the closest safe anchorage for the vessel was further away than was prudent to transit with the casualty. Finally, due to high water conditions on the Lower Mississippi River, the Coast Guard received emergency requests from industry for additional anchorage area as these conditions are causing increased reliance on safe anchorage to manage transits during both high traffic season and high water. This rule will improve the overall safety of anchored vessels in the White Castle and Cedar Grove Anchorages and provide for two additional anchorage areas to address the increased waterway congestion and improve the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce.

The distance between the two upper anchorages in the Lower Mississippi River, White Castle Anchorage MM 190.4 and Baton Rouge General Anchorage MM 228.5 is so great that a vessel suffering a casualty between them would become a hazard to the waterway. Plaquemines Point Anchorage was created to help mitigate the risk by reducing the distance between safe anchorage for deep draft vessels in the reach between White Castle Anchorage and Baton Rouge General Anchorage. The addition of the Plaquemines Point Anchorage reduces the greatest distance between anchorages at this stretch from 38.1 miles to 24.1miles.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorages. Through this rulemaking, the Coast Guard is amending two existing anchorage grounds; Cedar Grove Anchorage, 33 CFR 110.195(a)(12) and White Castle Anchorage, § 110.195(a)(29), and is establishing two new permanent anchorage grounds; Point Michel Anchorage, § 110.195(a)(35), and Plaquemines Point Anchorage, § 110.195(a)(36).

The Coast Guard has consulted with the Chief of Engineers the Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District about the specific provisions of this interim rule, and the Chief of Engineers has recommended that we proceed with our amendment of two existing anchorage grounds and establishment of two addition anchorage grounds as specified in this rule.

IV. Discussion of Interim Rule

This interim rule establishes two new anchorages and amends two established anchorages to provide necessary additional anchorage area while also requesting comments. While vessels are occupying the new and amended anchorage areas, the impact of this rule will be more apparent to mariners operating in these areas. We believe the mariner will therefore be more inclined to provide input and feedback on how the increased anchorage area is used and if such changes address the needs of the waterway. This feedback will aid the Coast Guard in finalizing these changes and designing better anchorage systems as needed in the future. Additionally, this rule is being timed to take effect during the most demanding maritime environment. During this time the river historically experiences high water levels with faster currents, low river levels with increased shoaling, fog season, and the increased outflow of goods due to grain harvest.

During the ANPRM comment period, the Coast Guard received support for establishing new anchorages and expanding existing anchorages. Four comments were submitted in support of Point Michel Anchorage and Cedar Grove Anchorage. Additionally, one comment requested that the Coast Guard also expand the White Castle Anchorage at Mile Marker 191 Above Head of Passes on the Lower Mississippi River. Therefore, this rule also expands White Castle Anchorage, as requested. It also adjusted the three anchorages discussed in the ANPRM and establishes Plaquemines Point Anchorage. One comment requested that the Coast Guard include latitude and longitude coordinates for the anchorage limits in addition to the textual description. The Coast Guard considered transitioning the anchorage geographic boundaries from Low Water Reference Plane (LWRP) and River Mile Markers (MM) to latitude and longitude coordinates while developing the ANPRM and found it would not add to the mariners' experience or clarity of the anchorage locations. Due to the ever-changing nature of the Lower Mississippi River, using LWRP as a reference for the anchorage boundaries will allow an anchorage to move with the river in the event that it shifts in vicinity of the anchorage. Using latitude and longitude could require the Coast Guard to amend the anchorage definition every time the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adjusts the LWRP based on hydrographic survey data.

Therefore, through this interim rule with request for comments, the Coast Guard is establishing two new anchorages and increasing the size of two established anchorages. The two new anchorages are known as the Point Michel Anchorage, § 110.195(a)(35), and the Plaquemines Point Anchorage, § 110.195(a)(36). The two anchorages increased in size are the Cedar Grove Anchorage, § 110.195(a)(12), and the White Castle Anchorage, § 110.195(a)(29).

By increasing existing anchorages and establishing new anchorages, this interim rule increases the available anchorage areas in this section of the river necessary to accommodate vessel traffic; improves navigation safety, providing for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce; and aids and assists the economy through increased anchorage capacity, streamlining vessel throughput and increasing ship to port interactions. The additional anchorage area established by this interim rule and request for comments increases the safety of life and property on navigable waters, while ensuring that the needs and concerns of all stakeholders are addressed through the rulemaking comment process before making the new and increased anchorages permanent through a final rulemaking.

A. Point Michel Anchorage

The Coast Guard is establishing Point Michel Anchorage as an area, 1.4-miles long and 500-feet wide along the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 40.8 to mile 42.2 Above Head of Passes. Its inner boundary is a line parallel to the nearest bank 325 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP. Its outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 825 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

B. Cedar Grove Anchorage

Currently the Cedar Grove Anchorage, under § 110.195(a)(12), is an area extending 1.2 miles in length along the right descending bank of the river from mile 69.9 to mile 71.1 Above Head of Passes. The current width of the anchorage is 500 feet, and the inner boundary is a line parallel to the nearest bank 200 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP, with the outer boundary at a line parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

The Coast Guard is amending the Cedar Grove Anchorage to increase the anchorage's overall length by fourteen hundredths of a mile, shifting the lower limit down river from mile 69.9 to mile 69.56 and shifting the upper limit down river from mile 71.1 to mile 70.9.

C. White Castle Anchorage

Currently, the White Castle Anchorage, under § 110.195(a)(29), is an area extending 0.7 miles in length along the right descending bank of the river from mile 190.4 to mile 191.1 Above Head of Passes. The current width of the anchorage is 300 feet and its inner boundary is a line parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP, with an outer boundary at a line parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

The Coast Guard is amending the White Castle Anchorage to increase the anchorage's overall length by fourteen hundredths of a mile, shifting the lower limit down river from mile 190.4 to mile 190.3 and shifting the upper limit up river from mile 190.1 to mile 191.14.

D. Plaquemines Point Anchorage

The Coast Guard is establishing Plaquemines Point Anchorage as an area, 0.5 miles in length along the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 203.9 to mile 204.4 Above Head of Passes. The anchorage is 500 feet wide and its inner boundary is a line parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP. Its outer boundary is a line parallel to the nearest bank 900 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

We have placed illustrations of each of the four anchorages as amended or established by this rule in the docket, accessible as indicated under ADDRESSES.

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.

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 Order12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because the anchorage areas are established outside of the navigation channel and will not unnecessarily restrict vessel traffic. When the anchorages are not occupied, vessels will be able to maneuver in and through the anchorage areas, and when occupied there is still room for two-way deep draft traffic to pass.

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.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule is amending two existing anchorage grounds and establishing two new anchorage grounds on a portion of the Lower Mississippi River. The new anchorages are being established and managed like all existing anchorages on the Lower Mississippi River. These anchorages are in the Federal Channel, a safe distance from shore, off revetment, in safe water, do not conflict with any other permit and do not impede safe navigation.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 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. 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 will 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 made a determination 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 amending two existing anchorage grounds and establishing two new anchorage grounds on a portion of the Lower Mississippi River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a 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.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this interim rule, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

Anchorage grounds.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. In § 110.195, revise paragraphs (a)(12) and (29) and add paragraphs (a)(35) and (36) to read as follows:
§ 110.195 Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South and Southwest Passes.

(a) * * *

(12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area, 1.34 miles in length along the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 69.56 to mile 70.9 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage, mile 69.56 to mile 70.9, is a line parallel to the nearest bank 200 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

(29) White Castle Anchorage. An area, 0.84 miles in length, along the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 190.3 to mile 191.14 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 300 feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

(35) Point Michel Anchorage. An area, 1.4 miles in length, along the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 40.8 to mile 42.2 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 325 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 825 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

(36) Plaquemines Point Anchorage. An area, 0.5 miles in length, along the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 203.9 to mile 204.4 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 900 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

Dated: June 1, 2017. D.R. Callahan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-12320 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0378] Safety Zone; Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Avi Resort and Casino Labor Day Fireworks on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada on Sunday, September 3, 2017. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 3, 2017, for Item 4 in Table 1 ot § 165.1124.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 for a safety zone on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada for the Avi Resort and Casino Labor Day Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1124, Table 1, Item 4 of that section from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 3, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1124, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1124 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: May 24, 2017. J.R. Buzzella, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2017-12321 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0357] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Potomac River, Newburg, MD AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during a fireworks display in Charles County near Newburg, MD on June 17, 2017. This action will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on June 17, 2017, until 10 p.m. on June 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0357 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 Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, 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 II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On April 11, 2017, Gilligan's Pier of Newburg, MD, notified the Coast Guard that it will conduct a fireworks display starting at 9 p.m. on June 17, 2017. The fireworks display will be launched from a barge located on the Potomac River, in Charles County near Newburg, MD. In the event of inclement weather, the fireworks display will be rescheduled for June 24, 2017. On May 5, 2017 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; Potomac River, Newburg, MD” (82 FR 21153). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended June 5, 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 the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display from a barge on navigable waters.

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 launching of fireworks over navigable waters scheduled for June 17, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within 200 yards of the firework barge. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

As noted above, the Coast Guard received no comments on its NPRM published May 5, 2017. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule published in the Federal Register.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 17, 2017, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 24, 2017. The safety zone will cover the navigable waters of the Potomac River, within 200 yards radius of a fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°23′45.2″ N., longitude 076°59′31.8″ W., located near Newburg, MD. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled twenty minute fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule 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 safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Potomac River for 11/2 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 made a preliminary determination 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 1-1/2 hours that will prohibit entry within 200 yards of a fireworks discharge barge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T05-0357 to read as follows:
§ 165.T05-0357 Safety Zone; Potomac River, Charles County, MD.

(a) Definitions. As used in this section:

Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

(b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters of the Potomac River, within 200 yards radius of a fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°23′45.2″ N., longitude 076°59′31.8″ W., located near Newburg, MD. All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.

(c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in subpart C of this part apply to the safety zone created by this section.

(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in § 165.23.

(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.

(3) Persons desiring to enter or transit through the safety zone must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative. To request permission to enter or transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative and proceed as directed while within the zone.

(4) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 17, 2017, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 24, 2017.

Dated: June 9, 2017. L.P. Harrison, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-12285 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [WV105-6043; FRL-9961-19-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule; administrative change.

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

This action is effective June 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheila K. Martinez, (215) 814-2035 or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register document. On February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7024), EPA published a Federal Register document beginning the new IBR procedure for West Virginia. On February 28, 2007 (72 FR 8903), February 10, 2009 (74 FR 6542), December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81474) and July 25, 2013 (78 FR 44884), EPA published updates to the IBR material for West Virginia.

Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved into the SIP the following regulatory changes to the following West Virginia regulations:

A. Added Regulations

1. EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes 6B-1-3 (West Virginia Code 6B-Ethics Standards and Financial Disclosure), sections 6B-1-3, 6B-2-6 and 6B-2-7.

B. Revised Regulations

1. 45 CSR 8 (Ambient Air Quality Standards), sections 45-8-1 through 45-8-4.

2. 45 CSR 13 (Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation and Operation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, Notification Requirements, Temporary Permits, General Permits, and Procedures for Evaluation), section 45-13-1 through 45-13B.

3. 45 CSR 14 (Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration), section 45-14-1 through 45-14-26.

4. 45 CSR 19 (Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment), section 45-19-1 through 45-19B.

C. Removed Regulations

1. 45 CSR 8, sections 45-8-5 through 45-8-7.

II. EPA Action

In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of July 1, 2016 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.2520(b).

EPA is revising our 40 CFR part 52 “Identification of Plan” for the State of West Virginia regarding incorporation by reference, § 52.2520(b). EPA is revising § 52.2520(b)(1) to clarify that all SIP revisions listed in paragraphs (c) and (d), regardless of inclusion in the most recent “update to the SIP compilation,” are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking in which EPA approved the SIP revision, consistent with following our “Approval and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Revised Format of 40 CFR part 52 for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference,” effective May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968). EPA is revising § 52.2520(b)(2) to clarify references to other portions of paragraph (b) with paragraph (b)(2). EPA is revising paragraph (b)(3) to update address and contact information.

EPA is also revising entries at 40 CFR 52.2520(c) in the “State Citation” column for Regulation 45 CSR 8 (Ambient Air Quality Standards) to read “Section 45-8-1,” “Section 45-8-2,” “Section 45-8-3,” and “Section 45-8-4.”

III. Good Cause Exemption

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

IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: March 21, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. Section 52.2520 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (b); and b. In paragraph (c), in the table titled “EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP”: i. Revising the entries under “[45 CSR] Series 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards”; and ii. Removing the entries for sections 45-19-6, 45-19-10, 45-19-11, 45-19-20, 45-19-21, and 45-19-22 under “[45 CSR] Series 19 Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment”.

The revisions reads as follows:

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan.

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

(2) EPA Region III certifies that the materials provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the state implementation plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. No additional revisions were made to paragraph (d) of this section between April 1, 2013 and July 1, 2016.

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

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP State citation
  • [chapter 16-20 or 45 CSR]
  • Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/
  • citation at 40 CFR 52.2565
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * [45 CSR] Series 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards Section 45-8-1 General 6/1/14 9/22/14, 79 FR 56514 Filing and effective dates are revised. Section 45-8-2 Definitions 6/1/14 9/22/14, 79 FR 56514 Section 45-8-3 Adoption of Standards 6/1/14 9/22/14, 79 FR 56514 Effective date is revised. Section 45-8-4 Inconsistency Between Rules 6/1/14 9/22/14, 79 FR 56514 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-12236 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0142; FRL-9958-61-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Oklahoma for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). The submission addresses how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of this NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). The i-SIP ensures that the Oklahoma SIP is adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0142. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wendy Jacques, 214-665-7395, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

    I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our November 21, 2016 proposal (81 FR 83184). In that proposed rule, we proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove the June 16, 2016, infrastructure SIP submission from Oklahoma, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We also proposed to disapprove a portion of the January 28, 2015 i-SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We proposed disapproval for both submissions only as to the portions that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II); the requirement for visibility protection in other States. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions which will interfere with required measures for any other State for (1) prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality or (2) visibility protection. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.

    At this time, we are not acting on the portions of the 2012 PM2.5 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS i-SIP submissions that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it relates to visibility protection in other States. We also note that the State did not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 1 in the June 16, 2016 submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, thus we are not taking action to approve or disapprove the requirements for that section. The State submitted an i-SIP revision to address the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 19, 2016; we expect to act on that submittal at a later time.

    1 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires the SIP to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions to other States which will (1) contribute significantly to nonattainment of a new or revised NAAQS or (2) interfere with maintenance of that NAAQS.

    II. Final Action

    We are approving the portions of the June 16, 2016 Oklahoma infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that address CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) as it relates to the prevention of interference with PSD, (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). The i-SIP addresses how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and is adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA.

    III. 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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 1, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart LL—Oklahoma 2. In § 52.1920(e), the first table titled “EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP” is amended by adding an entry for “Infrastructure for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS” at the end to read as follows:
    § 52.1920 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State
  • submittal date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 6/16/2016 6/14/2017 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Does not address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). No action on 110(a)(2)(D) (i)(II) (visibility portion).
    [FR Doc. 2017-12209 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0833; FRL-9962-48-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Nonattainment New Source Review AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Texas for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP revision being approved pertains to CAA 2008 ozone NAAQS requirements for vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) in the Dallas/Fort Worth ozone nonattainment area (DFW area).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 12, 2017 without further notice, unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comment by July 14, 2017. If the EPA receives such comment, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0833, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] 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, please contact Carl Young, 214-665-6645, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Carl Young, 214-665-6645, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” mean the EPA.

    I. Background

    In 2008 we revised the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS replaced the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. The DFW area was classified as a “Moderate” ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and initially given an attainment date of no later than December 31, 2018 (77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012). The DFW area consists of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties.

    On December 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision rejecting, among other things, our attainment deadlines for the 2008 ozone nonattainment areas, finding that we did not have statutory authority under the CAA to extend those deadlines to the end of the calendar year. NRDC v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456, 464-69 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Consistent with the court's decision we modified the attainment deadlines for all nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and set the attainment deadline for all 2008 Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, including the DFW area as July 20, 2018 (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015).

    On July 10, 2015, Texas submitted a SIP revision for the DFW area based on an attainment date of December 31, 2018. Texas further revised the SIP to address an attainment date of July 20, 2018 and submitted it on August 5, 2016. Copies of the SIP revisions are available at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0833.

    As a moderate ozone nonattainment area and under the anti-backsliding requirements of the previous standards, Texas is required to implement I/M and NNSR programs. These were also requirements under the previous ozone standards. In the August 5, 2016 SIP revision Texas discusses these requirements and noted: (1) That the DFW area meets the CAA requirements to implement an I/M program and (2) since the Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 ozone nonattainment area was not redesignated to attainment prior to the revocation of the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS, anti-backsliding NNSR requirements for Serious areas still apply. Texas also noted that a redesignation substitute demonstration was submitted for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to satisfy anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked NAAQS in the DFW area. Anti-backsliding requirements ensure air quality in nonattainment areas does not get worse after an air quality standard is revoked (81 FR 81276, 81288, November 17, 2016). The EPA approved Texas SIP (Texas SIP) that incorporates by reference the state's regulations can be found at 40 CFR 52.2270(c).

    II. EPA's Evaluation A. CAA Requirements for I/M in the DFW Area

    I/M refers to the inspection and maintenance programs for in-use vehicles required under the CAA. The applicable requirements for ozone nonattainment areas that are required to adopt I/M programs are described in CAA sections 182(a)(2)(B), 182(b)(4), 182(c)(3), and 184(b)(1)(A) and further defined in 40 CFR 51.350 (“Applicability”) of the I/M rule (40 CFR part 51, subpart S). Under these cumulative requirements, Moderate ozone nonattainment areas in urbanized areas with 1990 Census populations of 200,000 or more are required to adopt basic I/M programs, while Serious and higher classified ozone nonattainment areas outside of the northeast Ozone Transport Region with 1980 Census-defined urbanized populations of 200,000 or more are required to adopt enhanced I/M programs (40 CFR 51.350(a)(2) and (4)).

    Previously, we revoked (1) the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004 and 70 FR 44470, August 3, 2005) and (2) the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015). Because the DFW area was classified as Serious nonattainment for these revoked ozone NAAQS, an enhanced I/M program is required in the DFW area for anti-backsliding purposes (40 CFR 51.1100(o)). Ozone classifications can be found in CAA section 181 and 40 CFR 51.1103. The Serious classification is one classification higher than the Moderate classification.

    The Texas SIP includes 30 TAC Section 114.2 (Inspection and Maintenance Definitions) and 30 TAC Section 114.50 (Vehicle Emissions Inspection Requirements) except for 30 TAC Section 114.50(b)(2). In a 2001 final rule, we did not approve 30 TAC Section 114.50(b)(2) as part of the Texas SIP as (1) it placed an additional reporting burden upon commanders at Federal facilities regarding affected Federal vehicles that is not imposed upon any other affected non-federal vehicle and (2) additional reporting requirement is not an essential element for an approvable I/M program, since affected Federal vehicles are also subject to the same reporting requirements as other affected non-federal vehicles (66 FR 57261, 57262, November 14, 2001).

    Under these provisions Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant counties are included in an enhanced I/M program. An enhanced program is required for anti-backsliding purposes since these counties were classified as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (75 FR 79302, December 20, 2010). The program requires that gasoline powered light-duty vehicles, and light and heavy-duty trucks between two and twenty-four years old, that are registered or required to be registered in the I/M program area, including fleets, are subject to annual inspection and testing. Wise County is not required to be included in the I/M program as it is not included in the urbanized area. See www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/1990uas.pdf and www.census.gov/population/metro/files/lists/historical/90mfips.txt. Therefore, since the provisions in the Texas SIP already include the CAA I/M requirements for the DFW area, we are approving this portion of the SIP revisions.

    B. CAA Requirements for NNSR in the DFW Area

    The applicable NNSR requirements for the various ozone nonattainment classifications are described in CAA section 182 and further defined in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I (Review of New Sources and Modifications). Under these requirements new major sources or major modifications at existing sources in an ozone nonattainment area must comply with the lowest achievable emission rate and obtain sufficient emission offsets. The emission offset ratio required for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas is 1.15 to 1 (CAA section 182(b)(5)).

    The Texas SIP includes 30 TAC Section 116.12 (Nonattainment and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review Definitions) and 30 TAC Section 116.150 (New Major Source or Major Modification in Ozone Nonattainment Area). These provisions require new major sources or major modifications at existing sources in the DFW area to comply with the lowest achievable emission rate and obtain emission offsets at the Moderate classification ratio of 1.15 to 1. Therefore, since the provisions in the Texas SIP already include the CAA NNSR requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate, we are approving this portion of the SIP revision.

    We note that at the time of the SIP revisions, except for Wise County, the Serious area NNSR permitting requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS applied for the DFW area to meet anti-backsliding requirements. Moderate area NNSR permitting requirements applied to Wise County. In November 2016, we approved a redesignation substitute for the DFW area, which addressed both the 1-hour and 1997 ozone standards. This action found that the area was meeting these standards and was expected to continue to meet these standards. Based on this finding, EPA, as part of the redesignation substitute, removed the Serious area NNSR requirement so that only Moderate area NNSR requirements apply to the DFW area (81 FR 78688, November 8, 2016).

    III. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to the Texas SIP submitted on August 5, 2016, that pertain to 2008 ozone NAAQS requirements for vehicle I/M and NNSR for the DFW area. As discussed above, the Texas SIP includes provisions to implement these Moderate area ozone nonattainment requirements.

    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on September 12, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by July 14, 2017. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    Samuel Coleman was designated the Acting Regional Administrator on June 1, 2017 through the order of succession outlined in Regional Order R6-1110.13, a copy of which is included in the docket for this action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 1, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart SS—Texas 2. In § 52.2270(e), the second table titled “EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas is amended by adding an entry at the end for “Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” to read as follows:
    § 52.2270 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or
  • non-attainment area
  • State approval/
  • submittal date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 7/6/2016 6/14/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2017-12210 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0621; FRL-9962-57-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Sources Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are finalizing full approval of two rules. Both rules update and revise the District's New Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution. We are also finalizing a technical correction to a previous action that will remove one rule from the SIP.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective on July 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0621. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although it may be listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thien Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

    Table of Contents Definitions I. Proposed Action II. EPA Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

    (i) The word or initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    (ii) The initials CARB mean or refer to the California Air Resources Board.

    (iii) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal Regulations.

    (iv) The initials or words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    (v) The word or initials ICAPCD or District mean or refer to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, the agency with jurisdiction over stationary sources within Imperial County.

    (vi) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.

    (vii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    I. Proposed Action

    On December 19, 2016, the EPA proposed a full approval of two rules and a limited approval and limited disapproval (LA/LD) of one rule (as noted in Table 1) submitted by CARB for incorporation into the ICAPCD portion of the California SIP. 81 FR 91895. Table 1 also lists the dates the rules were adopted by ICAPCD and submitted by CARB, which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.

    Table 1—Submitted NSR Rules Rule # Rule title Adopted/
  • revised
  • Submitted Proposed action
    204 Applications 9/14/99 05/26/00 Full Approval. 206 Processing of Applications 10/22/13 02/10/14 Full Approval. 207 New and Modified Stationary Source Review 10/22/13 1/21/14 LA/LD.

    The EPA proposed to approve Rules 204 and 206 as part of ICAPCD's NSR permitting program because we determined that these rules meet the statutory requirements for SIP revisions as specified in sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA. Rules 204 and 206, together with Rule 207, satisfy the substantive statutory and regulatory requirements for a NSR permit program as contained in CAA section 110(a)(2)(c) and 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. We also proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 207. We do not intend to finalize that proposed action. Instead, we intend to take a new rulemaking action to conditionally approve Rule 207 into the Imperial County portion of the California SIP. We also proposed to remove Rule 103 (Exemptions) as a technical correction to a previous action approving Rule 202 (Exemptions) into the ICAPCD portion of the California SIP, which superseded and replaced Rule 103. 76 FR 26615 (May 9, 2011).

    II. EPA Action

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments. Therefore, as authorized by CAA section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is finalizing approval of Rule 204 (Applications) and Rule 206 (Processing of Applications) into the ICAPCD portion of the California SIP. This action will incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP.

    In this action we are also finalizing a technical correction to our previous action approving Rule 202 into the ICAPCD portion of the California SIP.1 In that action, our approval of Rule 202 into the SIP superseded and replaced Rule 103, which EPA had previously approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10832), but we failed to include the necessary regulatory text to effect this change. This final action includes the necessary regulatory text to remove Rule 103 from the California SIP. We did not seek public comment on this technical correction because public participation requirements were satisfied as part of our action approving Rule 202 into the SIP.

    In the proposed action, we also proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 207 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review). We do not intend to finalize that proposed action. Instead, we intend to take a new rulemaking action to conditionally approve Rule 207 into the Imperial County portion of the California SIP.

    1 76 FR 26615 (May 9, 2011).

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ICAPCD rules listed in Table 1 of this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these rules generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (Air -3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because 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.

    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.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 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)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 14, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(14)(ii), (c)(279)(i)(A)(15) and (16), and (c)(442)(i)(A)(4) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan-in part.

    (b) * * *

    (14) * * *

    (ii) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b)(14) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(351)(i)(A)(4) of this section, Rule 103.

    (c) * * *

    (279) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (15) Rule 204, “Applications,” revised on September 14, 1999.

    (16) Previously approved on January 3, 2007 in paragraph (c)(279)(i)(A)(14) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(442)(i)(A)(4) of this section, Rule 206.

    (442) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (4) Rule 206, “Processing of Applications,” revised on October 22, 2013.

    [FR Doc. 2017-12235 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237; FRL-9962-75-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Regional Haze Progress Report State Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New Mexico on March 14, 2014. New Mexico's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Act and the EPA's rules that require New Mexico to submit a periodic report assessing progress toward the reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for mandatory Class I Federal areas in and outside New Mexico with a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237. All documents in the docket are listed at the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” each mean “the EPA.”

    I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in the EPA's November 3, 2015 proposal.1 In that document, the EPA proposed to approve New Mexico's regional haze progress report SIP revision (submitted on March 14, 2014) as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). In addition, the EPA proposed to approve New Mexico's determination that the current regional haze SIP is adequate to meet the State's RPGs for the first planning period and requires no further substantive revision to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emission reductions.

    1 See 80 FR 67682.

    The proposal and the accompanying technical support document (TSD) provide detailed descriptions of New Mexico's SIP revision and the rationale for the EPA's proposed approval of the State's submittal. Please see the docket for these and other documents regarding the proposal.

    The public comment period for the proposal closed on December 3, 2015. The EPA received one set of comments in a letter dated December 3, 2015, from the National Parks Conservation Association and the San Juan Citizens Alliance regarding the EPA's proposal. The comment letter is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at http://www.regulations.gov. Below, the EPA provides a summary of the comments received and corresponding responses. After careful consideration of the comments and the information provided, the EPA is approving the progress report, as proposed.

    II. Response to Comments

    Comment: The commenter noted that New Mexico's progress report indicated that the State is no longer implementing its State Mobile Source Regulation but is relying on federal programs that will achieve the same reductions. The commenter argued that the progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) because it was not clear about the start date of the State's reliance on federal programs for mobile source reduction or the impact that a delayed start had on visibility.

    Response: The comment does not demonstrate a failure to meet § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). This element requires a description of the status of implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the State. As discussed in the proposal, New Mexico stated in the progress report that it is implementing all long-term control strategies with the exception of the formerly adopted, and now repealed, State Mobile Source Regulation. The State Mobile Source Regulation, when adopted in 2007, would have applied the California motor vehicle standards within New Mexico. We do not agree that the provided details for § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) are lacking or inadequate. Section 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires only a description of the status of the implementation of the measures in the regional haze SIP, not an assessment of the effect of the implementation or failure to implement each specific measure. New Mexico's reliance on the federal program is unlikely to have a significant impact on visibility. At the time the regulation was adopted by New Mexico, the California standards were projected to substantially differ from federal motor vehicle emissions standards. Since that time, as the progress report notes, the California and federal programs for emissions standards for motor vehicles are more aligned with each other than was expected by New Mexico when it adopted the State Mobile Source Regulation.2

    2 For example, in 2009, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed “regulatory convergence” with California on motor vehicle fuel economy standards. See 74 FR 49454 (September 28, 2009). This was subsequently adopted, starting with model years 2012-2016. 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010).

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) because it was not clear whether certain Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) policies, including the WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility and the WRAP Policy on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire, were incorporated into the State's Smoke Management Plan (SMP) and are being implemented.

    Response: Consistent with the recommendation of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, the regional haze program under 40 CFR part 309 brings special attentiveness to smoke management. New Mexico adopted a revision to the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) addressing smoke management to meet these regional haze rule requirements. The EPA previously approved New Mexico's regional haze SIP in 2012 as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), which deals with implementation plan requirements related to fire.3 In doing so, the EPA noted that the SMP operating within New Mexico was consistent with the WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility and the Wrap Policy on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire, both of which were appendices to the approved Regional Haze SIP.4 The progress report stated that New Mexico, aside from its update regarding State Mobile Source Regulation, is implementing the long-term strategies adopted into the regional haze SIP. This sufficiently indicates the status of implementation for the State's SMP. Therefore, we disagree that the progress report's discussion of the State's SMP failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(1)(i)(A).

    3 See 77 FR 70693 (November 27,2012) (approving 20.2.65 NMAC (Smoke Management)).

    4 See 77 FR 36065.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because it did not include any information about emission reductions provided by the State's SMP. Annual emissions related to fire and estimated benefits should be readily available.

    Response: We do not agree with the assertion that the progress report fails to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). While this provision requires a summary of the emission reductions achieved in the State through the implementation of the measures in its regional haze SIP, nothing in this provision requires the State to include estimates in its progress report of the emission reductions achieved by specific measures. Namely, there is no requirement for a detailed, causal analysis that pinpoints or links certain emission reductions to actual regional haze SIP measures. It is acceptable for the State to provide a summary of overall emission changes, rather than an analysis that attributes particular emission reductions from specific sources to certain measures in the plan, mainly when such a higher level summary does not indicate any problem with the direction and magnitude of these overall changes. We address in the response to a later comment the adequacy of the State's summary of overall emissions.

    Additionally, the comment misperceives the basis for inclusion of the SMP in the SIP. The visibility goal announced in section 169A of the CAA is both to prevent future impairment as well as remedy existing impairment. Regional haze SIPs accordingly may include programs to avert increases in emissions. The SMP is generally designed to limit increases in emissions, rather than to reduce existing emissions. As such, there would be little purpose for the State to try to estimate the specific emission reductions achieved through implementation of the program.5

    5 Consistent with these points, as reported on New Mexico's Smoke Management Program Web site, a fire emissions summary for 2005-2016 shows no appreciable increases in SMP-regulated emissions. See New Mexico 2017 Annual Smoke Management Meeting Presentation, available at https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016_Fire_Emissions.pdf.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because there were no estimates of reductions by the new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) programs. The progress report did not indicate what emissions were avoided or allowed by the implementation of these programs.

    Response: As explained above, nothing in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires the State to include estimates in its progress report of the emission reductions achieved by specific measures included in the regional haze SIP.

    Additionally, although the regional haze SIP also cited the PSD and NSR programs, the primary benefit from these programs is to limit emission increases rather than precisely working to achieve reductions in existing emissions. Given this, there would be little purpose for New Mexico to try to estimate the specific emission reductions achieved through the implementation of these programs.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because point source data for sources reporting to the Clean Air Markets Database should be included.

    Response: This comment does not identify a basis to disapprove the SIP revision. Source-specific information on all electric generating units (the sources reporting to the Clean Air Markets Database) is not required in summarizing the emission reductions in the progress report. The submitted progress report provided detailed information on anticipated emission reductions at the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). This facility is the largest point source in the State and the most significant New Mexico emission source in the Clean Air Markets Database. More importantly, it is the only electric generating unit with definite emission limits in the New Mexico regional haze SIP. The progress report provided statewide point source emission data from 2008-2012 and compared it to the 2018 projected emission levels.6 While additional information from the Clean Air Markets Database regarding emissions from other electric generating units may be useful, it is not essential for the approval of the submitted progress report. As noted in the proposal, we compared the point source data in the progress report to that reported by the Clean Air Markets Database and found that the reported emissions were consistent with that data.

    6 See Figure 3.6 of Progress Report for the State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, March 11, 2014.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because the inventories did not address all haze-related pollutants. Emission inventories specific to particulate organic matter, coarse mass, ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) should be included.

    Response: 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a summary of the emission reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). Because this provision does not call for a summary of all pollutants that could contribute to visibility impairment, we do not agree that the progress report is inadequate. The initial regional haze SIP focused on reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM) emissions, and New Mexico's progress report summarized the changes in emissions in these pollutants from 2008-2012. Even if no information on other pollutants was included in the progress report, we would consider it reasonable and sufficient if New Mexico's progress report only provided a summary of emission reductions for these pollutants.

    New Mexico's progress report, however, also provided information on other visibility-impairing pollutants. Section 3.5 of the progress report discussed New Mexico's baseline emissions inventory for 2002 and an estimated emissions inventory for 2008. The 2002 inventory was developed by the WRAP for use in the initial WRAP regional haze SIP strategy development. The 2008 inventory was based on WRAP inventory work for the West-wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) and the Deterministic & Empirical Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO3) modeling project efforts. The pollutants inventoried were SO2, NOX, NH3, VOCs, primary organic aerosol (POA), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil, and coarse mass. The inventories were categorized for all major visibility-impairing pollutants under major source groupings either as anthropogenic or natural. The anthropogenic source categorization included point and area sources, on and off-road mobile sources, area oil and gas, fugitive and road dust, and anthropogenic fire. The natural source categorization included natural fire, wind-blown dust, and biogenic sources.

    Comment: The progress report presented information on visibility levels within section 3.3 of the progress report, which is titled as addressing the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). The commenter does not consider this presentation as satisfying the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) concerning emissions because the progress report failed to explain how much of the monitored improvements in visibility impairment were the result of emission reductions from control measures in the New Mexico SIP or from factors outside of the SIP. Furthermore, the trends outlined in section 3.5 were seven years out of date.

    Response: We agree with the commenter that information on visibility levels is not an adequate substitute for the summary of emissions that is specifically required by § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). However, we are not basing our approval of the progress report as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) on the information on visibility levels presented in section 3.3 of the progress report. The summary of emissions requirement is satisfied for the reasons explained in our earlier responses.

    Comment: The goal of the progress report is to document progress and changes over the past five years and to make informed decisions on that basis. To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C), the progress report should include information that describes the preceding five-year period as closely as possible. The progress report discussed the 2005-2009 period. Although information from 2007-2011 was included, the EPA should require the use of the most recent data available.

    Response: Although New Mexico used 2005-2009 data to estimate current conditions, it also included additional IMPROVE data in its progress report. The 2007-2011 visibility information was specifically included in Tables 3.3-3.18 of the progress report. We do not agree that the information was not addressed such that the requirements of the section were not met. Because the progress report was not submitted until March 14, 2014, however, there was an understandable lag between its drafting, its adoption, and submission. We do not consider the non-inclusion of visibility data more recent than 2011 to be a basis for disapproval. Visibility data for all Class I areas through 2013 were available to the public as of the date of the commenter's letter via the IMPROVE program's Web site, and the commenter did not argue that the more recent data supports disapproval of the progress report.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) because it did not use the most up-to-date emissions information nor provide sufficient forward projections.

    Response: Section 3.8 of the progress report contains a detailed analysis of 2008 emissions from all source types. In addition, Figure 3.6 of the SIP revision presents SO2 and NOX point source emission data for 2008-2012. The year 2012 was the most recent emission information covering all types of point sources available at the time of the progress report's development. The progress report does not include any emissions information for non-point sources for any year more recent than 2008. However, we note that the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Version 1.01 was published by the EPA in July 2013,7 only about 8 months before the State submitted the progress report. In light of this, we consider the progress report to adequately meet the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D), which calls for an analysis tracking the changes “over the past 5 years” in emissions from “all sources” based on “the most recent updated emissions inventory.”

    7 Profile of the 2011 National Air Emissions Inventory, April 2014, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/lite_finalversion_ver10.pdf.

    Regarding the issue of projected inventories, § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) states that emission estimates must be projected forward as necessary and appropriate to account for emissions changes during “the applicable 5-year period.” This phrase is meant to refer to “the past 5 years,” a phrase that itself is not clearly defined in the rule. The progress report was required to be submitted in 2013 and was submitted in February 2014. Thus, a projection for point sources would at most have included estimates for 2013. In light of this, we do not believe that a projection for point sources beyond 2012 is necessary. With regard to non-point sources, a projection could have addressed projected-emissions several years beyond the 2008 information presented in the progress report; however, the SIP focuses primarily on the control of point source emissions. With respect to changes in fire-related emissions, projections would inherently be highly uncertain in any case. Consequently, we do not believe that projections of non-point source emissions beyond 2008 were needed in the progress report.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) because it drew an unsupported conclusion that no anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or improving visibility. For example, White Mountain had visibility degradation.

    Response: We disagree with the comment. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources. In its progress report, New Mexico concluded that no such changes had occurred. The proposal noted that there have been significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from point sources within the State. Also, the State has relied on the history of visibility levels at affected Class I areas to assess whether there have been changes in emissions that limit or impede progress. While we do not consider information on visibility levels to be a substitute for the required summary of emissions that is exactly required by § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B), we consider this approach to be an acceptable method for making the assessment of whether there have been changes in emissions that limit or impede progress. Overall visibility at each of the seven Class I areas in New Mexico had improved since the baseline period, with the exception of visibility at the White Mountain Wilderness Area for the most recent period. Specifically, for White Mountain, the five-year average deciview trend for the 2007-2011 period showed slightly worse visibility (0.2 dv higher) for the 20% worst days, as compared to average conditions for 2000-2004. The commenter relied on this degradation in visibility at White Mountain to support its argument that anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico have limited progress in improving visibility. The slight visibility degradation at White Mountain, however, was the result of elevated coarse mass levels from non-anthropogenic sources in 2011 compared to baseline levels.8 Overall SO2 and NOX emissions in New Mexico have actually been going down, or are at least stable. The proposal also indicated that White Mountain showed a 0.3 dv improvement in visibility on the 20% best days.9

    8 See 80 FR 67688.

    9 The SIP includes this information in Table 3.17 and Table 3.18.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) because it failed to address anthropogenic emissions outside of New Mexico that may have limited or impeded progress in visibility improvement.

    Response: The progress report is required to assess significant changes outside the State that have limited or impeded progress, as specified by § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). As in the case of assessing in-state emissions, we believe it was acceptable for the State to use trends in visibility levels to make this assessment. Visibility conditions at the Class I areas are improving, as discussed in response to the comment above, and there do not appear to be significant changes that would call for explicit discussion. We also note that the State's Regional Haze SIP and its participation in the section 309 program addressed anthropogenic emissions from outside of the borders that limit or impede visibility improvement.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because it cited 2000-2010 visibility monitoring data to conclude that New Mexico's approach was sufficient to meet the RPGs. The progress report offers little support to show that visibility is causally linked to New Mexico's SIP measures rather than to changes in natural or out-of-state sources. The EPA should require quantitative evidence to show the link between visibility benefits and the SIP measures.

    Response: We view the requirement of this section as a qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends, including expected emission reductions from measures that have not yet become effective. Even though section 3.7 of the progress report (titled as addressing the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)) cited visibility monitoring data from 2000-2010, visibility data through 2011 is presented in other sections of the progress report. In particular, tables 3.3-3.18 presented visibility values of the 20% worst and 20% best days of periods 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2006-2010, and 2001-2011 for each affected Class I area. Table 2.1 of the progress report showed the RPGs for each area.

    The five-year average deciview values for the most recent period 2007-2011 indicated visibility improvement for all Class I areas (relative to 2000-2004 baseline period) except White Mountain, which was slightly worse by 0.2 dv. It is important to note that White Mountain visibility improved in the 2005-2009 and 2006-2010 periods compared to the baseline period 2000-2004. The data supports the conclusion that the 2007-2011 visibility conditions at White Mountain were higher than the 2000-2004 baseline due to elevated coarse mass levels in 2011 from high wind events.

    The 2007-2011 visibility conditions at Bandelier and San Pedro parks were higher than in the intermediate periods, due to elevated particulate organic matter levels in 2011 from impacts of fires, but better than in 2000-2004.

    For all the areas, the 2007-2011 visibility levels were better than the RPGs for the 20% best days. This is also true for five of the areas for the 20% worst days. The commenter did not suggest any particular reasons to expect that visibility will degrade in these areas for the best/worst days where it is already better than the 2018 RPGs.

    As noted, three Class I sites were not yet meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20% worst days in 2007-2011. The progress report explains that in this period White Mountain was adversely affected by coarse mass from high wind events, and San Pedro and Bandelier were affected by particulate organic matter from natural and anthropogenic fires. In 2005-2009, these three areas were below or very close to the 2018 RPGs.

    In summary, we conclude that the State's visibility assessment is adequate. Wildfires or dust storms might again affect visibility in the 2018 timeframe, but New Mexico expects further reduction of SO2 and NO2 emissions, principally from the implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls. These control measures should contribute toward improved visibility conditions at all New Mexico Class I areas, including Bandelier, San Pedro, and White Mountain for 2018. Further progress will also occur through recently adopted or proposed regulatory programs. The State was reasonable to rest on these positive overall visibility trends and future expectations regarding emission reductions in determining that the existing SIP requires no further revision to achieve established RPGs. New Mexico demonstrated progress toward meeting the RPGs and no substantive revisions to the Regional Haze SIP are necessary for the first planning period. We also note that § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) does not impose a requirement for a demonstration of a causal linkage between improvements in visibility and measures in New Mexico's SIP.

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because it did not offer sufficient evaluation of the lack-of-progress or backsliding at Class I areas, like White Mountain, that indicated degradation in the 2007-2011 time-period relative to 2005-2009 values. A more detailed account of visibility issues at these Class I areas should be required before concluding that the existing SIP is adequate.

    Response: We disagree with this comment. Based on the speciation information in Tables 3.3-3.18, the data supports the conclusion that dust storms and/or wildfires are responsible for the limited cases of degradation in visibility between 2005-2009 and 2007-2011, rather than any backsliding on the control of emissions from anthropogenic sources.

    Comment: According to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(B)(vi), RPGs should reflect all reductions in the SIP and in any other CAA requirement. RPGs for Class I areas impacted by SJGS should be lower. The EPA should require the progress report to include a list of Class I areas impacted by future reductions from SJGS and clarify that RPGs are those that would be consistent with that source's reductions.

    Response: The progress report was prepared with emphasis on New Mexico's improvement in meeting established RPGs for 2018. There were no changes to the State's RPGs in the progress report nor were there any submitted for review as any separate SIP revision. Whether the RPGs should be lower is not in the scope of the proposed action. We agree that future reductions at SJGS will improve visibility at Class I areas inside and outside of New Mexico. Having already approved the RPGs,10 we noted that with the additional future two-unit shut down and two-unit selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) installation at the SJGS, New Mexico emissions will improve on the RPGs in its SIP. New Mexico is not impeding other states in meeting analogous RPGs, and the additional BART controls will decrease visibility-impairing pollutants more than anticipated from the RPGs based on the WRAP modeling for NOX, SO2 and PM.

    10 The RPGs can be seen in the June 2012 proposed action (77 FR 36044) which was finalized on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693).

    New Mexico does not have a progress report requirement to list all Class I areas impacted by future reductions from the SJGS. However, state and federal technical records for the BART determination at SJGS provide information on this area of interest.

    Comment: The commenter requested that the EPA require revisions to the progress report to ensure Class I areas in New Mexico and surrounding states are on the glide path to achieve natural visibility conditions by 2064.

    Response: In the progress report SIP, New Mexico was required to assess whether the SIP was sufficient to meet the RPGs that were established for the first ten-year planning period. There is no requirement for a state to include an assessment of whether a SIP is sufficient to ensure that Class I areas (in the State or those in nearby states) are on track to meet the uniform rate of progress (URP).11 The State followed the proper approach in setting the RPGs through 2018 by considering the URP and the factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in the EPA's Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). In doing so, the RPGs reflected a slower rate of progress than the URP for the first planning period. Those established RPGs for each Class I area in New Mexico were approved by the EPA in a previous action.12 Looking forward, New Mexico will be required to provide new updated RPGs for 2028 in the next comprehensive regional haze SIP revision planning period.

    11 The URP is the minimum rate of progress needed to achieve the CAA goal of natural visibility conditions within sixty years (to 2064). It represents the slope between baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and natural visibility conditions in 2064. The URP for each ten-year long-term strategy equals the visibility improvement along the glide path for that planning period.

    12 The RPGs can be seen in the June 2012 proposed action (77 FR 36044) which was finalized on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693).

    III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving New Mexico's regional haze progress report SIP revision (submitted on March 11, 2014) as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).13 The EPA is also approving New Mexico's determination that the current regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established RPGs for 2018 for visibility improvement and emission reductions.

    13 The final action does not pertain to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County portion of the SIP in New Mexico. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4) authorizes Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to locally administer and enforce the State Air Quality Control Act by providing for a local air quality control program, and that entity submitted an initial regional haze SIP for that jurisdiction that was separately approved by the EPA (77 FR 71119, November 29, 2012). The EPA anticipates a separate regional haze progress report SIP submittal from this entity.

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the State. New Mexico adequately addressed the status of control measures in the progress report regional haze SIP as required by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). All major control measures (including BART) were identified and the emission reduction strategy behind each control was explained. New Mexico included a summary of the implementation status associated with each control measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In addition, the progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance time-frame for all controls.

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a summary of the emission reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The progress report must identify and estimate emission reductions to date in visibility-impairing pollutants from the SIP control measures identified for implementation. New Mexico has adequately summarized the emission reductions achieved throughout the State in the progress report regional haze SIP as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires that for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the State must assess visibility conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values. New Mexico has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include summaries of monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze Rule.14

    14 For purposes of improved clarity on future reports, we recommend that New Mexico include a graph of rolling averages similar to what was provided in the guidance example, illustrating the uniform glide path. The glide path graphically shows what would be a uniform rate of progress, toward meeting the national goal of a return to natural visibility conditions by 2064 for each Class I area.

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an analysis tracking the change over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the applicable five-year period. New Mexico has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. The analysis in the progress report was based on appropriate data.

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources. New Mexico has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) to show that the major contributors of anthropogenic emissions are being reduced and visibility is improving without having limited or impeded progress.

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies in the regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable the State, or other states with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established RPGs. New Mexico has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). New Mexico referenced the improving visibility trends with appropriately supported data with a focus on future implementation of BART controls.

    40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) requires a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary. New Mexico has adequately addressed the sufficiency of the monitoring strategy as required by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico reaffirmed the continued reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network. New Mexico also explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking visibility trends at the Class I areas and identified no expected changes in this network.

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of the existing regional haze SIP and take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. New Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that the current Section 309 and 309(g) regional haze SIPs are adequate to meet the State's 2018 RPGs and require no further revision at this time. The EPA is approving this negative declaration from New Mexico.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations, 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, if the choices meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves the information and determinations in the State's progress report as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce the requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 1, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart GG—New Mexico 2. In § 52.1620(e), the second table titled “EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP” is amended by adding the entry “New Mexico Progress Report for the State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1620 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State
  • submittal/
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * New Mexico Progress Report for the State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze Statewide 3/14/2014 6/14/2017 [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2017-12208 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 68 [EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725; FRL-9963-55-OLEM] RIN 2050-AG91 Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Further Delay of Effective Date AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; delay of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is delaying the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments for an additional 20 months, to allow EPA to conduct a reconsideration proceeding and to consider other issues that may benefit from additional comment. The new effective date of the rule is February 19, 2019. The Risk Management Program Amendments were published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2017. On January 26, 2017 and on March 16, 2017, EPA published two documents in the Federal Register that delayed the effective date of the amendments until June 19, 2017. The EPA proposed in an April 3, 2017 Federal Register action to further delay the effective date until February 19, 2019 and held a public hearing on April 19, 2017. This action allows the Agency time to consider petitions for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments and take further regulatory action, as appropriate, which could include proposing and finalizing a rule to revise or rescind these amendments.

    DATES:

    The effective date of the rule amending 40 CFR part 68 published at 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017), as delayed at 82 FR 4594 (January 26, 2017) and 82 FR 13968 (March 16, 2017), is further delayed until February 19, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for the rule amending 40 CFR part 68 under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Belke, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8023; email address: [email protected], or: Kathy Franklin, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7987; email address: [email protected]

    Electronic copies of this document and related news releases are available on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/rmp. Copies of this final rule are also available at https://www.regulations.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This final rule applies to those facilities, referred to as “stationary sources” under the Clean Air Act (CAA), that are subject to the chemical accident prevention requirements at 40 CFR part 68. This includes stationary sources holding more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance in a process. Table 5 provides industrial sectors and the associated NAICS codes for entities potentially affected by this action. The Agency's goal is to provide a guide for readers to consider regarding entities that potentially could be affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in this table. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in the introductory section of this action under the heading entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Table 5—Industrial Sectors and Associated NAICS Codes for Entities Potentially Affected by This Action Sector NAICS code Administration of Environmental Quality Programs 924. Agricultural Chemical Distributors: Crop Production 111. Animal Production and Aquaculture 112. Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry Farm 115. Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 42,491. Chemical Manufacturing 325. Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 4,246. Food Manufacturing 311. Beverage Manufacturing 3121. Oil and Gas Extraction 211. Other 44, 45, 48, 54, 56, 61, 72. Other manufacturing 313, 326, 327, 33. Other Wholesale: Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods 423. Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods 424. Paper Manufacturing 322. Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 324. Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers 4,247. Utilities 221. Warehousing and Storage 493. B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related information?

    This final action and pertinent documents are located in the docket (see Addresses section). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this document and the response to comments document will also be available at https://www.epa.gov/rmp/final-amendments-risk-management-program-rmp-rule.

    C. Judicial Review

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by August 14, 2017. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.

    II. Background

    On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions under section 112(r)(7) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The amendments addressed various aspects of risk management programs, including prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the underlying rules. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as the “Risk Management Program Amendments.” For further information on the Risk Management Program Amendments, see 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).

    On January 26, 2017, the EPA published a final rule delaying the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments from March 14, 2017, to March 21, 2017, see 82 FR 8499. This revision to the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments was part of an EPA final rule implementing a memorandum dated January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” This memorandum directed the heads of agencies to postpone until 60 days after the date of its issuance the effective date of rules that were published prior to January 20, 2017 but which had not yet become effective.

    In a letter dated February 28, 2017, a group known as the “RMP Coalition,” 1 submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments (“RMP Coalition Petition”) as provided for in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).2 On March 13, 2017, the Chemical Safety Advocacy Group (“CSAG”) also submitted a petition for reconsideration and stay.3 On March 14, 2017, the EPA received a third petition for reconsideration and stay from the State of Louisiana, joined by Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The petitions from CSAG and the eleven states also requested that EPA delay the various compliance dates of the Risk Management Program Amendments.

    1 The RMP Coalition is comprised of the American Chemistry Council, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group.

    2 A copy of the RMP Coalition petition is included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.

    3 A copy of the CSAG petition is included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725. CSAG members include companies in the refining, oil and gas, chemicals, and general manufacturing sectors with operations throughout the United States that are subject to 40 CFR part 68.

    Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator may commence a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgement, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the effective date of the rule for up to three months during such reconsideration.

    In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator announced the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments (a copy of “the Administrator's Letter” is included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725).4 As explained in the Administrator's Letter, having considered the objections raised in the RMP Coalition Petition, the Administrator determined that the criteria for reconsideration have been met for at least one of the objections. EPA issued a three-month (90-day) administrative stay of the Risk Management Program Amendments, which delayed the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments rule for 90 days, from March 21, 2017 until June 19, 2017 (see 82 FR 13968, March 16, 2017). EPA will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future that will provide the RMP Coalition, CSAG, the states, and the public an opportunity to comment on the issues raised in the petitions that meet the standard of CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), as well as any other matter we believe will benefit from additional comment.

    4 Pruitt, E. Scott. March 13, 2017. Letter to Justin Savage of Hogan Lovells Regarding Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration of the Final Rule Entitled “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,” published on January 13, 2017, 82 FR 4594. Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    III. Proposal To Delay the Effective Date

    The Administrator's authority to administratively stay the effectiveness of a CAA rule pending reconsideration (without a notice and comment rulemaking) is limited to three months (see CAA section 307(d)(7)(B)) EPA believed that three months was insufficient to complete the necessary steps in the reconsideration process for the Risk Management Program Amendments and to consider other issues that may benefit from additional comment.5 Since we expect to take comment on a broad range of legal and policy issues as part of the Risk Management Program Amendments reconsideration, on April 3, 2017 (82 FR 16146), we proposed to further delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments to February 19, 2019.

    5 See the proposed rule notice published April 3, 2017, 82 FR at 16148-16149.

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 307(d) of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)), which generally allows the EPA to set effective dates as appropriate unless other provisions of the CAA control, and section 112(r)(7) of the CAA (see section IV.A below).

    IV. Summary of Public Comments Received

    EPA received a total of 54,117 public comments on the proposed rulemaking. Several public comments were the result of various mass mail campaigns and contained numerous copies of letters or petition signatures. Approximately 54,000 letters and signatures were contained in these several comments. The remaining comments include 108 submissions with unique content (including representative copies of form letter campaigns and joint submissions), and nine duplicate submissions. EPA also held a public hearing on April 19, 2017 where EPA received five written comments and 28 members of the public provided verbal comments (three of the speakers later submitted their testimony as written comments). Comments received during the public hearing are included in the 107 submissions with unique content. A transcript of the hearing testimony is available as a support document in the docket EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725 for this rulemaking. A summary of public comments and EPA's response to the comments can be found in the Response to Comments document, also available in the docket. 6

    6 June 2017. EPA. Response to Comments on the 2017 Proposed Rule Further Delaying the Effective Date of EPA's Risk Management Program Amendments (April 3, 2017; 82 FR 16146). This document is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    A. Comments Regarding EPA's Legal Authority To Delay the Effective Date

    In the proposed rulemaking, EPA noted that under CAA section 307(d), the Agency may set effective dates as appropriate through notice and comment rulemaking unless another provision of the CAA controls. In the past, EPA has used this authority in conjunction with the reconsideration process when the administrative stay period of three months, which the Administrator may invoke without notice and comment, would be insufficient to complete the necessary process for reconsideration.

    Several industry trade associations agreed that EPA had authority under CAA section 307(d) to conduct a notice and comment rulemaking delaying the effective date for this rulemaking. Some noted that, unlike other CAA provisions, there are no provisions in CAA section 112(r)(7) requiring a specific, earlier effective date. Some pointed out that, in contrast to several other CAA provisions (see, e.g., CAA section 112(e)(1), CAA section 112(i)(3)(A), and CAA section 112(j)(5)), CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) gives the Administrator the flexibility to make a rule effective with no specific outside date beyond that which “assur[es] compliance as expeditiously as practicable.” In light of EPA's commitment to take further regulatory action in the near future, with the potential for a broad range of rule revisions (82 FR 16148 through 16149, April 3, 2017), and the substantial resources required to prepare for compliance mentioned in the final Risk Management Program Amendments (82 FR 4676, January 13, 2017), these commenters agreed that the 20-month delay in the effective date would be as expeditiously as practicable. Several of these commenters also identified 5 U.S.C. 705 in the Administrative Procedure Act as a potential vehicle for postponing the effective date indefinitely in connection with the pending litigation.

    Other commenters contested EPA's authority to delay the effective date as proposed. A group of advocacy organizations, as well as a legal institute affiliated with a law school, argued that the 90-day stay provision in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) is the maximum period that a rule can be stayed or have its effectiveness delayed in connection with a reconsideration. Noting that, except for the 90-day stay provision, the subparagraph provides that “reconsideration shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule,” one commenter contends no additional exceptions can be implied. The commenter supports its position by citing Natural Resources Defense Council v. Reilly, 976 F.2d 36, 40-41 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Another commenter argues that EPA had “no excuse” for not seeking comment on its first two delays of effectiveness, making further delay impermissible.

    More generally, commenters opposed to the proposed delay of effectiveness sought to rely on previous findings in the rulemaking record for the Risk Management Program Amendments. Noting that CAA section 112(r)(7)(B) provides that the regulations under that paragraph should provide for the prevention and detection of, and the response to, accidental releases “to the greatest extent practicable,” one commenter argues that a 20-month delay in effectiveness would run counter to the statute when EPA in the Risk Management Program Amendments already determined it was practicable to implement these regulations sooner. The commenter notes that paragraph (B) of CAA section 112(r)(7) requires rules to be applicable to a stationary source no later than three years after promulgation, so extending the effective date 20 months would “inevitably result in pushing some or all of the compliance deadlines far beyond three years.” The commenter viewed EPA as needing a more complete justification than if it were setting “a new policy created on a blank slate.” According to the commenter, EPA failed to justify its changed position. In the view of the commenter, EPA's discussion of compliance dates for new provisions in the Risk Management Program Amendments final rule (82 FR 4675-80, January 13, 2017) demonstrates that the 20-month delay in effectiveness does not comply with “as expeditiously as practicable” under CAA section 112(r)(7)(A).

    Commenters also dispute the basis for convening a reconsideration proceeding by criticizing the BATF West finding itself and whether its publication two days before the close of comments made it impracticable to comment on the report. One commenter noted several of the parties requesting reconsideration in fact mentioned the BATF West finding in their comments. Another commenter objected to EPA not specifying what other issues met the reconsideration standard. More generally, commenters opposed to the delay of effectiveness found EPA lacked sufficient detail in its explanation of the basis for proposing to delay effectiveness of the Risk Management Program Amendments for them to be able to comment. Commenters further asserted that a further delay makes it more likely that another incident like the West Fertilizer explosion and other events discussed in the record, will occur. Commenters also expressed a concern that EPA could repeatedly delay the effective date based on the logic in the proposed rule.

    Response: EPA notes that CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) does not contain any language limiting “as expeditiously as practicable” to an outside date (e.g., “in no case later than date X”). The volume of comments received on the proposed rule validates our expectation that there will be a high level of interest in the broad range of issues we expect to take comment on. For example, in this rulemaking, several commenters have criticized the methodology of the BATF West finding and raised substantive concerns about various rule provisions. We have consistently stated that, beyond those issues that meet the CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) standard for reconsideration, we intend to raise other matters that we believe would benefit from additional comment (see, the Administrator's Letter).7 Many of the decisions underlying the Risk Management Program Amendments are policy preferences based on weighing factors in the record that could be rationally assessed in different ways. We continue to believe that evaluating these issues will be difficult and time consuming. A delay of effectiveness will allow EPA time for a comprehensive review of objections to the Risk Management Program Amendments rule without imposing the rule's substantial compliance and implementation resource burden when the outcome of the review is pending.

    7 Pruitt, E. Scott. March 13, 2017. Letter to Justin Savage of Hogan Lovells Regarding Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration of the Final Rule Entitled “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,” published on January 13, 2017, 82 FR 4594. Office of the Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    A delay of 20 months is a reasonable length of time to engage in the process of revisiting issues in the underlying Risk Management Program Amendments. Contrary to some commenters assertions (and contrary to the urging of those commenters who asked that we invoke the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section 705), we did not propose and are not finalizing an indefinite delay of effectiveness. During this period, the pre-Amendments 40 CFR part 68 rules will remain in effect. As we noted when we proposed and finalized the Risk Management Program Amendments, “[t]he [Risk Management Program] regulations have been effective in preventing and mitigating chemical accidents in the United States” (see 82 FR 4595, January 13, 2017). We discuss additional bases for the delay of effectiveness for 20 months in section V of the preamble. For all of these reasons, we conclude that the delay of effectiveness for 20 months is as expeditious as practicable for allowing the rule to go into effect.

    We disagree with the view that the three month stay provision in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) prohibits the use of rulemaking to further delay the effectiveness of rules that are not in effect. As an initial matter, were no reconsideration involved, a rule with a future effective date could have its effective date delayed simply by a timely rulemaking amending its effective date before the original date. Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 683 F.2d 752, 764 (3d Cir. 1982) (discussing application of rulemaking procedures to action to postpone effective date of rule); NRDC v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing amendment of effective date of rule through notice-and-comment process). While one commenter criticizes the initial delay of effectiveness for relying on the good cause exception (arguing that, in lieu of the initial good cause delay, we should have used a notice and comment procedure to delay the effective date), and the subsequent 90-day stay for continuing that delay, neither of those actions were challenged. There is no reasonable dispute that the Risk Management Program Amendments are not yet in effect. EPA has explained in both the proposed rule and in the Administrator's Letter of March 13, 2017,8 that part of its purpose in proposing to delay the effective date 20 months is to not only to conduct a reconsideration on the issues identified in that letter but also to solicit comment on any other matter that will benefit from additional comment. The interpretation of CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) urged by the commenters would say that EPA's ability to use a notice and comment procedure to delay the effective date for these matters that EPA seeks to solicit additional comment on is negated when there is a reconsideration ongoing as well.

    8 Pruitt, E. Scott. March 13, 2017. Letter to Justin Savage of Hogan Lovells Regarding Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration of the Final Rule Entitled “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,” published on January 13, 2017, 82 FR 4594. Office of the Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    We also disagree with the commenters' view that the phrase “reconsideration shall not postpone the effective date of the rule” is meant to prohibit using a notice and comment procedure or any means other than the three month stay in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) to delay a rule that is not in effect. In quoting the statute, the comment omits the word “[s]uch.” In context, “such reconsideration” follows a discussion of the process for convening reconsideration and precedes the three month stay provision. A natural reading of the language is that the act of convening reconsideration does not, by itself, stay a rule but that the Administrator, at his discretion, may issue a stay if he has convened a proceeding. The three-month limitation on stays issued without rulemaking under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) does not limit the availability or length of stays issued through other mechanisms. Furthermore, CAA section 307(d) expressly contemplates the “revision” of rules to which it applies. See CAA section 307(d)(1); see also CAA section 112(r)(7)(E) (regulations under CAA section 112(r) “shall for purposes of sections 113 . . . and 307 . . . be treated as a standard in effect under subsection (d) of [section 112]”). EPA is issuing this rule as a revision of the Risk Management Program Amendments.

    The case of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Reilly, 976 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (NRDC) does not prohibit EPA from using rulemaking procedures under CAA section 307(d) to modify and delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments. In that case, EPA had made the finding that radionuclides were hazardous air pollutants under the pre-1990 CAA. That finding, in turn, triggered a series of mandatory duties under the CAA that required promulgation of emission standards. EPA did so after several court orders but, under a series of rules under CAA section 301 and the pre-1990 CAA section 112, continuously stayed the effectiveness of those rules. The 1990 Amendments added special provisions for radionuclides, saving the former rules, delaying the effectiveness of a category of rules impacting medical facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and establishing specific procedures for exempting NRC-licensed sources. See CAA section 112(d)(9), CAA section 112(q). EPA conducted a rulemaking under CAA section 112(d)(9) but lacked sufficient data to promulgate an exemption for most NRC-licensed facilities. Nevertheless, EPA promulgated a stay of effectiveness of the radionuclide rules, using CAA section 301, while it gathered the necessary information to establish exemptions. (See NRDC at 38-39.) EPA characterized its rule as a transitional rule necessary to implement the intent of the 1990 Amendments. Id. at 40.

    The NRDC court observed that the pre-1990 CAA had a highly circumscribed schedule for promulgating hazardous air pollutant rules. NRDC at 41. Recognizing that its past precedents did not allow the grant of general rulemaking authority to override specific provisions of the CAA, the court held that “[i]n the face of such a clear statutory command, we cannot conclude that section 301 provided the EPA with the authority to stay regulations that were subject to the deadlines established by [former] section 112(b).” Id.

    In contrast to the “clear statutory command” to promulgate rules for radionuclides once they were found to be hazardous air pollutants, CAA section 112(r) contains no similar mandate to promulgate the Risk Management Program Amendments. There is no dispute that EPA discharged its mandatory duty under CAA section 112(r)(7)(B) to promulgate “reasonable regulations” when it promulgated the Risk Management Program rule in 1996. These rules have been in effect and stationary sources that have present a threshold quantity of a regulated substance must comply with 40 CFR part 68 as in effect. The Risk Management Program Amendments were not promulgated to comply with a court order enforcing a mandatory duty. In contrast to the specific deadlines in the pre-1990 CAA for hazardous air pollutant regulation and the detailed structure in CAA section 112(d)(9) and CAA section 112(q) for addressing radionuclides under the amended CAA, CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) provides the Administrator substantial discretion regarding the setting of an effective date. The statutory framework for a discretionary rule under CAA section 112(r)(7) differs greatly from the “highly circumscribed schedule” analyzed by the NRDC court. Absent an otherwise controlling provision of the CAA, CAA section 307(d) allows EPA to set a reasonable effective date.

    We view the provision in CAA section 112(r)(7)(B) regarding when regulations shall be “applicable” to a stationary source to not prohibit the delay of effectiveness we promulgate in this rule. First, we note that February 2019 is before January 2020 (three years after the January 2017 promulgation), so even assuming the provision in question requires compliance by three years after promulgation of the Risk Management Program Amendments,9 it is speculative to say that it is “inevitable” that some compliance dates will be “pushed off far beyond three years” from promulgation. Even if the commenter's intuition is correct, the argument is premature. A challenge to compliance dates after January 2020 should be brought in litigation over a rule that establishes such a date. Second, the appropriate rule to challenge compliance dates set in the Risk Management Program Amendments would be the underlying rule (i.e., the Risk Management Program Amendments rule promulgated on January 13, 2017) that established compliance dates. This rule does not impact compliance dates except for those dates that would be triggered prior to February 2019. If EPA proposes amending compliance dates beyond January 13, 2020, then this issue will need to be addressed.

    9 EPA does not concede that the provision requires all compliance deadlines to be set three years from the date of any rule under CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i). This provision more naturally is read to refer to the earliest possible compliance date for a newly-regulated stationary source. This reading is confirmed by the rest of the sentence, which refers to when a stationary source with a newly-listed substance must comply with CAA section 112(r)(7)(B) regulations. The Risk Management Program Amendments itself describes the rationale for when already-regulated sources must comply with the Risk Management Program Amendments.

    While CAA section 112(r)(7)(B) contains a requirement that EPA's regulations “provide, to the greatest extent practicable,” for prevention, detection, and response to accidental releases, that subparagraph places this requirement in the context of a mandate for the regulations to be “reasonable.” The phrase “to the greatest extent practicable” does not prohibit weighing the difficulties of compliance planning and other implementation issues.

    This action itself is not the convening of reconsideration, therefore, the questions of whether the arson finding by the BATF was proper are outside the scope of this rule. Even if the comment were within the scope of this rulemaking, the mention of the BATF finding in a few scattered comments does not mean that it was practicable for the public generally and the hundreds of commenters to meaningfully address the significance of the finding for a rule with multiple issues and hundreds of supporting documents. EPA is not taking action under APA section 705 at this time.

    B. Comments Supporting a Delay of the Effective Date

    Many commenters supported EPA's proposal to delay the effective date of the final rule to February 19, 2019. These commenters included industry associations, regulated facilities, state government agencies, and others. These commenters gave various reasons for delaying the final rule's effective date.

    1. Comments Arguing That EPA Finalized Provisions That Were Not Discussed in the Proposed Rule

    Several commenters indicated the final rule included changes on which the public was never offered an opportunity to comment as required by the CAA. These commenters highlighted a new provision in the final rule requiring regulated facilities to disclose any information relevant to emergency planning to local emergency planners, and a new final rule trigger for third-party audits allowing an implementing agency to require such an audit due to “conditions at the stationary source that could lead to the release of a regulated substance” as issues that warrant reconsideration and delaying the effective date of the final rule. These commenters argued that the public was deprived of effective notice and opportunity to comment on the new provisions.

    Response: EPA agrees that the final rule included some rule provisions that may have lacked notice and would benefit from additional comment and response.

    2. Comments Regarding the Arson Finding for the West Fertilizer Explosion

    Many commenters indicated that the finding by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) that the West Fertilizer explosion was caused by arson undermined the basis for the rule and that this necessitates delaying the final rule's effective date, in order to reconsider its provisions, in light of the BATF finding. Some complained the timing of BATF's announcement a few days before the end of the rule comment period precluded the development and submission of meaningful comments addressing this change in circumstances and its implications.

    Response: EPA agrees that the timing of the BATF finding on the West Fertilizer incident made it impracticable for many commenters to meaningfully address the significance of this finding in their comments on the rule. Additionally, delaying the effective date of the final rule to February 19, 2019, will give the Agency an opportunity to consider comments on the BATF finding and take further action to reconsider the rule, propose any necessary changes, and provide opportunity for public comment on any changes made.

    3. Other Comments Raised

    Many commenters indicated that the effective date of the rule should be delayed because its information disclosure provisions create security risks, and these risks have not been adequately addressed by EPA in the final rule. Other commenters objected to other specific provisions of the final rule (e.g., third-party audits, safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA), incident investigation requirements, etc.), indicating that EPA had provided no evidence that these provisions would produce the benefits claimed by EPA, and that EPA should delay the effective date of the final rule either to provide such evidence or remedy these deficiencies by making substantive changes to the rule. Numerous commenters argued that EPA failed to show that the benefits of the final rule outweigh its costs and made other flaws in the regulatory impact analysis, which the commenters contended were grounds for delaying the effective date of the final rule and reconsidering its provisions. One trade association stated that the Risk Management Program Amendments are not needed and that the current Risk Management Program has been effective in identifying and reducing risks and preventing offsite impacts based on EPA data showing that between 2004 and 2013 there has been a decrease of over 60% of all RMP-reportable events. Another trade association believes that the amendments raise substantial questions of policy and significantly increase the regulatory burden without corresponding benefits and should be considered for repeal under Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” 10 and 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” 11

    10 See Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs which was signed on January 30, 2017 and published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9339). Executive Order 13771 requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/03/2017-02451/reducing-regulation-and-controlling-regulatory-costs.

    11 See Executive Order 13777: Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda which was signed on February 24, 2017 and published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2017 (82 FR 12285). Executive Order 13777 tasks each Federal agency with identifying regulations that are unnecessary, ineffective, impose costs that exceed benefits, or interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies for repeal, replacement, or modification https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/01/2017-04107/enforcing-the-regulatory-reform-agenda.

    A commenter representing a group of State agencies argued that the effective date should be delayed because the final rule created unjustified burdens on state and local emergency responders. Several commenters indicated that EPA did not adequately coordinate with OSHA during the rulemaking process, and that EPA should delay the effective date of and reconsider the rule in order to coordinate any amendments to the Risk Management Program with changes made by OSHA to its Process Safety Management standard.

    Some commenters also argued that the effective date should be delayed because EPA did not adequately address small business concerns, or made other procedural errors during the rulemaking process.

    Response: While it is not necessary for EPA to address the substance of these claims in this rulemaking, we note they represent a wide-ranging and complex set of policy and procedural issues. Some of these issues would not meet the standard for reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), but present substantial policy concerns that EPA may wish to address while it conducts the reconsideration process for issues that meet that reconsideration standard. Whether or not EPA agrees with commenters on the merits of these claims, the Agency believes the existence of such a large set of unresolved issues demonstrates the need for careful reconsideration and reexamination of the Risk Management Program Amendments. Therefore, while EPA does not now concede that it should make the particular regulatory changes that these commenters have recommended, or that the Agency made errors in its regulatory impact analysis or rulemaking procedures, EPA concurs with commenters to the extent that they argue for finalizing the proposed delay in the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments rule in order to conduct a reconsideration proceeding. That proceeding will allow EPA to address commenters' issues as appropriate.

    C. Comments Opposing a Delay of the Effective Date

    Many commenters opposed EPA's proposal to further delay the effective date of the final rule to February 19, 2019. These commenters included environmental advocacy groups, other non-governmental organizations, private citizens, an association representing fire fighters, an academic institution, and others. These commenters gave various reasons for opposing EPA's proposal to delay the final rule's effective date, which are discussed individually below.

    1. Comments Arguing That a Further Delay of the Rule's Effective Date Will Cause Harm

    Many commenters indicated that EPA should not delay the effective date because delaying the rule's implementation will fail to prevent or mitigate chemical accidents that will cause harm to workers at regulated facilities and members of the public in surrounding communities.

    Response: EPA disagrees that further delaying the final rule's effective date will cause such harm. EPA notes that delaying the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments rule simply maintains the status quo, which means that the existing RMP rule remains in effect. EPA also notes that compliance dates for most major provisions of the Risk Management Program Amendments rule were set for four years after the final rule's effective date, so EPA's delay of that effective date has no immediate effect on the implementation of these requirements. As EPA has previously indicated, the existing RMP rule has been effective in preventing and mitigating chemical accidents, and these protections will remain in place during EPA's reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments.12

    12 See 82 FR 4595, January 13, 2017.

    2. Comments Arguing That the EPA's Proposal To Further Delay the Rule's Effective Date Is Arbitrary and Capricious

    Three commenters claimed that EPA's rulemaking to extend the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments rule to February 19, 2019 is arbitrary and capricious. Commenters stated several reasons that the proposed delay is arbitrary and capricious, including: The issues presented for reconsideration do not meet the statutory requirement for reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), and, even if any met the CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) standard, EPA lacks authority to extend a rule's effective date beyond 90 days pending reconsideration; EPA failed to explain why it is appropriate to forgo the benefits of the rule during the period of the stay; EPA failed to adequately justify its change in position; and EPA has not shown that a delay of 20 months assures compliance “as expeditiously as practicable”, as required under CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) or provides to “the greatest extent practicable” for prevention, detection, and response, as required under CAA section 112(r)(7)(B). One commenter also stated that EPA appeared “to pick the duration it proposes—20 months—out of a hat,” and provided no explanation or justification for this timeframe.

    Response: EPA disagrees that this rulemaking is arbitrary and capricious. In order to conduct a rulemaking that is reasonable, and therefore not arbitrary and capricious, the courts have held that an agency must “set forth its reasons” for its decision and “establish a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” 13 EPA has done so here. First, the reconsideration process that EPA has initiated does meet the statutory test for such a process. As EPA stated in the proposed rule, under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator must commence a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgement, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review, and the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.

    13 See Tourus Records, Inc. v. D.E.A., 259 F.3d 731, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

    The Administrator's Letter of March 13, 2017,14 specified at least one issue—BATF's West finding—met the CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) standard for reconsideration. The letter does not reach conclusions on other issues in the RMP Coalition petition that meet this standard, but notes that at least some issues may have lacked notice and would benefit from additional comment and response. All three petitioners argued that the final rule included new requirements that were not included in the proposed rule, requirements that petitioners would have strongly objected to if they had been afforded an opportunity to comment. In particular, the petitioners cited a provision in the final rule requiring regulated facilities to disclose any information relevant to emergency planning to local emergency planners and a requirement to perform a third-party audit when an implementing agency requires such an audit due to “conditions at the stationary source that could lead to the release of a regulated substance.” Without conceding that these provisions lacked adequate notice, EPA recognizes that these provisions include core requirements for major rule provisions, and so are of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Thus, BATF's West finding meets the criteria for reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), and it make practical sense for EPA to provide an opportunity for comment on these other issues in the reconsideration proceeding.15

    14 Pruitt, E. Scott. March 13, 2017. Letter to Justin Savage of Hogan Lovells Regarding Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration of the Final Rule Entitled “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,” published on January 13, 2017, 82 FR 4594. Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    15 Even if no issue met the statutory standard for when the Administrator must convene a proceeding for reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator retains the discretion to convene a reconsideration process. See Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir. 1980) (“Administrative agencies have an inherent authority to reconsider their own decisions, since the power to decide in the first instance carries with it the power to reconsider.”); Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Found. V. U.S. Postal Serv., 946 F.2d 189, 193 (2d Cir. 1991) (“It is widely accepted that an agency may, on its own initiative, reconsider its interim or even its final decisions, regardless of whether the applicable statute and agency regulations expressly provide for such review.”)

    EPA also disagrees with one commenter's assertion that the lack of discussion in the proposed rule of the forgone benefits of the rule during the period of the delay of effectiveness makes the delay arbitrary and capricious. As an initial matter, the regulatory impact analysis for the Risk Management Program Amendments was unable to conclusively show that the benefits of the final rule exceeded its costs. The lack of a quantification of benefits in the final rule regulatory impact analysis would make a quantification of forgone benefits during the period of a delay speculative at best. However, as noted above, most provisions have a compliance date of 2021, therefore any benefits from compliance would not be impacted.

    In deciding whether to implement a regulation, EPA may reasonably consider not only its benefits, but also its costs. Petitioners have claimed that the final Risk Management Program Amendments' new provisions that were not included in the proposed rule may actually increase the risks and burdens to states, local communities, emergency responders, and regulated entities rather than fixing the problems identified in the proposed rule. It is completely reasonable for EPA to delay implementation of and reexamine the Risk Management Program Amendments when the Agency becomes aware of information, such as that provided by petitioners, that suggests one or more of these provisions may potentially result in harm to regulated entities and the public.

    Petitioners' claims that the new final rule provisions may cause harm to regulated facilities and local communities, and the speculative but likely minimal nature of the forgone benefits, form another rational basis for EPA to delay the effectiveness of the Risk Management Program Amendments and determine whether they remain consistent with the policy goals of the Agency.

    EPA also disagrees with a commenter's assertion that delaying the final rule's effective date by 20 months violates the requirement under CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) to assure compliance as expeditiously as practicable, or the requirement under CAA section 112(r)(7)(B) to promulgate reasonable regulations to the greatest extent practicable. EPA believes that the language of these sections of the CAA gives the Administrator broad authority to determine what factors are relevant to establishing effective dates that are practicable (unlike other sections of the CAA, where Congress constrained “as practicable” to include certain defined time limits). In exercising this authority, EPA believes effective dates must account for all relevant factors. In this case, delaying the effective date of the rule during the reconsideration proceeding is reasonable and practicable because the Agency does not wish to cause confusion among the regulated community and local responders by requiring these parties to prepare to comply with, or in some cases, immediately comply with, rule provisions that might be changed during the subsequent reconsideration. This is particularly true for provisions that might result in unanticipated harm to facilities and local communities, as petitioners have alleged may occur. The Agency notes that compliance with most major provisions in the final rule would not be required until 2021, so delaying the effective date of the final rule would have minimal effect on the benefits derived from compliance with these provisions.

    Lastly, EPA disagrees that it picked the 20-month duration for the proposed delay in effective date “out of a hat,” or provided no explanation or justification for this timeframe. As EPA explained in the proposed rule (82 FR 16148 through 16149, April 3, 2017): “As with some of our past reconsiderations, we expect to take comment on a broad range of legal and policy issues as part of the Risk Management Program Amendments reconsideration . . .,” and,

    This timeframe would allow the EPA time to evaluate the objections raised by the various petitions for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments, consider other issues that may benefit from additional comment, and take further regulatory action. This schedule allows time for developing and publishing any notices that focus comment on specific issues to be reconsidered as well as other issues for which additional comment may be appropriate. A delay of the effective date to February 19, 2019, provides a sufficient opportunity for public comment on the reconsideration in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 307(d), gives us an opportunity to evaluate and respond to such comments, and take any possible regulatory actions, which could include proposing and finalizing a rule to revise the Risk Management Program amendments, as appropriate.

    This rationale for the proposed duration of the effective date is neither arbitrary nor capricious.

    3. Comments Arguing Inadequate Rationale Was Provided for Further Delay of Effective Date

    Several commenters argued that EPA did not provide a valid basis or reasoned explanation for its proposal to delay, for why the petitions should take more than three months to consider, or how the 20-month delay period was determined.

    Response: The three petitions for reconsideration cover numerous policy and legal issues with the Risk Management Program Amendments. As stated in the April 3, 2017 proposal (82 FR 16148 through 16149) these issues may be difficult and time consuming to evaluate, and given the expected high level of interest from stakeholders in commenting on these issues, we proposed a longer delay of the effective date to allow additional time to open these issues for review and comment. Additionally, in both the Administrator's Letter of March 13, 2017 16 as well as the proposed delay of effectiveness rule, EPA indicated it may raise other matters we believe will benefit from additional comment (82 FR 16148 through 16149, April 3, 2017). Resolution of issues may require EPA to revise the amendments through a rulemaking process, which would involve a developing a proposal to focus comment of specific issues as well as other issues for which additional comment may be appropriate, allowing sufficient opportunity for public comment, review and respond to comments, and develop any final revisions. The rulemaking process also must allow time for Agency, inter-agency and OMB review of the proposed and final rule. Based on EPA rulemaking experience, EPA decided that a 20-month delay was warranted. Some industry commenters have pointed out that without such a delay, regulated parties would need to expend resources to prepare for compliance with the Risk Management Program Amendments final rule provisions while further changes to the program are being contemplated.

    16 Pruitt, E. Scott. March 13, 2017. Letter to Justin Savage of Hogan Lovells Regarding Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration of the Final Rule Entitled “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,” published on January 13, 2017, 82 FR 4594. Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    4. Comments Indicating That the BATF Arson Finding Should Not Affect the Basis of the Rule

    Many commenters indicated that the BATF finding of arson should not cause EPA to reconsider the final rule. These commenters indicated that Executive Order 13650 was not specifically based on the West Fertilizer event, and that EPA did not justify the Risk Management Program Amendments rule on that single incident, but rather that EPA indicated an average of approximately 150 chemical accidents have occurred each year, and the rule's provisions were intended to address all such accidents. Other commenters noted that conditions at West Fertilizer enabled the fire to escalate into a massive detonation, and lack of effective communication contributed to the needless deaths of emergency responders—issues that some rule amendments addressed by improving emergency preparedness. Some commenters also stated that the BATF finding was not actually based on evidence of arson, but rather relied on a process of elimination called “negative corpus” to project a conclusion without evidence, and therefore the BATF finding does not provide grounds for the petitioner's objection to the final rule.

    Response: As an initial matter, the Agency's decision to convene a proceeding for reconsideration was made in a separate action—the Administrator's Letter of March 13, 2017. The merits of that decision are not properly subject to collateral attack in this rule. The substantive impact of the BATF finding on the policy issues opened in the reconsideration-related proposed rule may be addressed in the notice and comment period for that rule. The focus of this delay of effectiveness rule is to provide sufficient time to conduct a proceeding on the complex set of issues identified by the petitions as well as other issues that merit additional comment.

    EPA disagrees that the BATF finding of arson as the cause of the West Fertilizer explosion does not provide grounds for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments final rule. While EPA agrees that the incident was not the sole justification for Executive Order 13650, and the Agency did not solely rely on it as justification for the Risk Management Program Amendments, there is no question that the event was the proximate trigger for Executive Order 13650 17 and prominently featured in the Agency's Risk Management Program Amendments proposed rule.18 EPA believes the prominence of the incident in the policy decisions underlying Executive Order 13650 and the Risk Management Program Amendments rule makes the BATF finding regarding the cause of the incident of central relevance to the rule amendments. If the cause of the West Fertilizer explosion had been known sooner, the Agency may have possibly given greater consideration to potential security risks posed by the proposed rule amendments. All three of the petitions for reconsideration and many of the commenters discuss potential security concerns with the rule's information disclosure requirements to LEPCs and the public. The RMP Coalition petition and some commenters argue that knowing that the West Fertilizer incident was an intentional, rather than an accidental act, would likely have resulted in more focus on enhanced facility security measures and justifications for the need for third-parties to obtain facility information, with protections on data use and further disclosure.

    17 See Executive Order 13650, Actions to Improve Chemical Safety and Security—A Shared Commitment; Report for the President, May, 2014, pp 1: “The West, Texas, disaster in which a fire involving ammonium nitrate at a fertilizer facility resulted in an explosion that killed 15 people, injured many others, and caused widespread damage, revealed a variety of issues related to chemical hazard awareness, regulatory coverage, and emergency response. The Working Group has outlined a suite of actions to address these issues . . .”

    18 In the proposed rule, EPA referred to the West Fertilizer event more than 15 times. For example, see 81 FR 13640, column 1: “In response to catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the United States, including the explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, on April 17, 2013 that killed 15 people, President Obama issued Executive Order 13650, “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security,” on August 1, 2013.”

    Clearly, EPA does not desire to establish regulations that increase security risks. While EPA has not concluded that the final rule would increase such risks, the petitioner's concerns, which are echoed by many other commenters, require careful consideration, and cannot be dismissed out of hand.

    Regarding these commenters claims that the BATF relied on an invalid form of reasoning (i.e., “negative corpus”) to reach its conclusion regarding the cause of the West Fertilizer explosion, EPA cannot evaluate these commenters claims without obtaining detailed information on the BATF investigation. The decision to reconsider simply acknowledges the fact that BATF made this finding, that the finding went to issues of central relevance to the Risk Management Program Amendments and that the finding was late enough in the comment period to make it impracticable for many commenters to meaningfully comment on the finding's significance for the rule. The substantive merits of the BATF methodology and its conclusion would be more appropriate to consider in a reconsideration rulemaking process addressing the Risk Management Program Amendments issues impacted by the finding. To the extent questions remain concerning the cause of the West Fertilizer explosion, EPA believes these argue for finalizing the delay of effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments in order to give the Agency time to better understand the basis for BATF's conclusions.

    Accordingly, EPA has decided to finalize the proposed delay of the effective date to February 19, 2019. This delay will give the Agency an opportunity to reconsider the Risk Management Program Amendments rule, propose changes to the rule as necessary, and provide additional opportunity for members of the public to submit comments on the proposal to EPA.

    5. Comments Arguing That the Petitioners' Other Claims Are Without Merit

    Some commenters stated that EPA and the petitioners for reconsideration failed to identify objections that either arose after the period for public comment or were impracticable to raise during this period, as required under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). One of these commenters stated that most of the objections that were raised by petitioners were “simply recycled from the comment period” and that the “remainder address issues that cannot possibly be considered “of central relevance” to the “Chemical Disaster Rule.” This commenter also indicated that several parties commented on the BATF finding during the public comment period for the Risk Management Program Amendments rulemaking, and that this demonstrated that it was not impracticable to raise the issue during the comment period. This commenter noted that EPA had responded to these comments and found that “it would be inappropriate to suspend the rulemaking based on outcomes of the incident investigation of the West Fertilizer explosion.”

    Response: EPA disagrees that petitioners have failed to identify one or more objections that either arose after the period for public comment or were impracticable to raise during that period. The decision to convene a proceeding for reconsideration was made in the Administrator's Letter of March 13, 2017.19 The substance of that decision is a separate action from this rule on the length of a delay of effectiveness. Petitioners, as well as numerous commenters, including industry trade associations, regulated facilities, state government agencies, and others asserted the final rule imposed extensive new requirements on covered facilities that were not contained in the proposed rule. These commenters maintained that two major provisions of the final rule were not contained in the proposal, including a new provision in the final rule requiring regulated facilities to disclose any information relevant to emergency planning to local emergency planners, and a new trigger for third-party audits. EPA agrees that these concerns warrant additional public comment and can be incorporated into the reconsideration process for the Risk Management Program Amendments rule.20

    19 Pruitt, E. Scott. March 13, 2017. Letter to Justin Savage of Hogan Lovells Regarding Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration of the Final Rule Entitled “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,” published on January 13, 2017, 82 FR 4594. Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    20 See footnote 15, above.

    While EPA acknowledges that several commenters included the BATF arson finding in their comments on the Risk Management Program Amendments proposed rule, the Agency does not view two days (i.e., the amount of time between BATF's announcement of its arson finding and the close of the public comment period for the Risk Management Program Amendments proposed rule) as a sufficient time period to evaluate the full implications of such important new information. Several commenters also noted that the BATF's arson finding was announced too late for them to adequately consider this information within their comments to EPA.

    Also, when EPA stated, in responding to comments on the proposed Risk Management Program Amendments, that it would be inappropriate to suspend the rulemaking based on outcomes of the incident investigation of the West Fertilizer explosion, the Agency had not yet received the petitions that prompted its reconsideration proceeding, as well as comments on the proposal to delay the rule's effective date, both of which assert that the information disclosure provisions contained in the final Risk Management Program Amendments may actually increase or introduce new security risks to RMP facilities, emergency responders, and communities. EPA believes it would be remiss for the Agency to allow the final rule to become effective without fully evaluating this new information. As previously indicated, EPA does not desire to establish regulations that increase security risks.

    Finally, several commenters also stated that EPA added more than 100 new documents to the rulemaking docket after the close of the comment period, and indicated that several of these documents were used by EPA to support the Agency's position on core provisions of the final rule, including the STAA and third-party audit provisions. These commenters stated that because the comment period had already closed when this information was added to the docket, the public was denied an opportunity to review and comment on the additional information. Without taking a position on whether these documents required additional comment under the rulemaking procedures of CAA section 307(d), a benefit of reopening comment on the topics that meet the reconsideration standard of CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) will be to allow for comment on some or all of these documents.

    6. Other Comments on the Proposed Delay of the Effective Date

    While noting their opposition to many provisions of the final regulation, an association of state and local emergency planning officials recommended that EPA allow the emergency response coordination activities provisions of § 68.93 and the emergency response program provisions of § 68.95 (and particularly paragraph (c)) 21 to go into effect immediately. This association argued that these two requirements are simple, direct, not burdensome, and in the case of § 68.95(c), essentially identical to requirements contained in the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

    21 Section 68.95(c) pertains to coordination of a facility's emergency response plan with the community emergency response plan and providing necessary information to local officials to develop and implement the community response plan.

    Response: EPA disagrees that the emergency response coordination activities provisions of § 68.93 should immediately go into effect. These provisions contain language (i.e., “Coordination shall include providing to the local emergency planning and response organizations . . . any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning”) for which two petitioners (the RMP Coalition and Chemical Safety Advocacy Group) specifically objected, based on their concerns that the rule included no limitations on the information requested to be disclosed or how sensitive information can be protected. In agreeing to convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the final rule, EPA agreed to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on other issues that may benefit from additional comment and response. By finalizing these provisions immediately, EPA would not be allowing the public an additional opportunity to comment on them. Additionally, § 68.93(b) requires coordination to include consulting with local emergency response officials to establish appropriate schedules and plans for field and tabletop exercises required under § 68.96(b). As § 68.96(b) is a new section created in the final rule, EPA cannot finalize § 68.93(b) as currently written without also finalizing § 68.96(b).

    Regarding this commenter's recommendation that EPA allow the emergency response program provisions of § 68.95, and particularly paragraph (c), to immediately go into effect, EPA notes that § 68.95(a)(4) also contains a reference to the new exercise requirements of § 68.96, and therefore this provision cannot go into effect without § 68.96. However, § 68.95(c) is already contained in the existing rule. In the Risk Management Program Amendments final rule, EPA simply replaced the phrase “local emergency planning committee” with the acronym “LEPC.” therefore, this requirement will remain in effect with or without the Risk Management Program Amendments final rule becoming effective.

    V. Additional Twenty Month Delay of Effectiveness

    EPA is delaying the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments final rule until February 19, 2019. Given the degree of complexity with the issues under review, and the likelihood of significant public interest in this reconsideration, we believe the delay we are adopting in this action is adequate and necessary for the reconsideration. While it is possible that we may require less time to complete the reconsideration, we believe delaying the effective date by a full 20 months is reasonable and prudent. This additional delay of the effective date enables EPA time to evaluate the objections raised by the various petitions for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments, provides a sufficient opportunity for public comment on the reconsideration in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 307(d), gives us an opportunity to evaluate and respond to such comments, and take any possible regulatory actions, which could include proposing and finalizing a rule to revise or rescind the Risk Management Program Amendments, as appropriate. During the reconsideration, EPA may also consider other issues, beyond those raised by petitioners, that may benefit from additional comment, and take further regulatory action.

    The EPA recognizes that compliance dates for some provisions in the Risk Management Program Amendments coincided with the rule's effective date, while compliance dates for other provisions would occur in later years, i.e., 2018, 2021, or 2022, depending on the provision. Compliance with all of the rule provisions is not required as long as the rule does not become effective. The EPA did not propose and is not taking any action on any compliance dates at this time, as EPA plans to propose amendments to the compliance dates as necessary when considering future regulatory action.

    Section 553(d) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. EPA is issuing this final rule under § 307(d)(1) of the CAA, which states: “The provisions of section 553 through 557 * * * of Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply to actions to which this subsection applies.” Thus, section 553(d) of the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting consistently with the policies underlying APA section 553(d) in making this rule effective on June 14, 2017. APA section 553(d) provides an exception when the agency finds good cause exists for a period less than 30 days before effectiveness. We find good cause exists to make this rule effective upon publication because a delay of effectiveness can only be put in place prior to a rule becoming effective. Waiting for 30 days for this rule to establish the new effective date of February 19, 2019 at this time would cause the Risk Management Amendments to become temporarily effective on June 19, 2017 (existing effective date). Avoiding this situation alleviates any potential confusion and implementation difficulties that could arise were the Risk Management Program Amendments to go into effect for a 30-day period and then be stayed during reconsideration or modified as a result of the reconsideration process.

    The effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments, published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4594), is hereby delayed to February 19, 2019.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Orders

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.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 a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This final rule would only delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not contain any information collection activities.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This final rule would not impose a regulatory burden for small entities because it only delays the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594). We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small 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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule would only delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not impose new regulatory requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This final rule only delays the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not impose any regulatory requirements.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This final rule only delays the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not impose any regulatory requirements.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    Only one major rule provision of the Risk Management Program Amendments has a compliance date that will be extended by delaying the effective date to February 19, 2019. As a result, the costs for that provision are delayed and will not be incurred by the regulated community while the rule is not yet in effect. As discussed below, the costs for this delayed compliance date is small relative to the total costs of the Risk Management Program Amendments and thus, the rule further delaying the effective date is not a major rule.

    In the Risk Management Program Amendments, EPA finalized the following compliance dates:

    • March 14, 2018—Require compliance with emergency response coordination activities within one year of an effective date of a final rule;

    • Provide three years for the owner or operator of a non-responding stationary source to develop an emergency response program in accordance with § 68.95. No specific date was established in the final rule. Instead, the three-year timeframe begins when the owner or operator determines that the facility is subject to the emergency response program requirements of § 68.95;

    • March 15, 2021—Comply with new provisions (i.e., third-party compliance audits, root cause analyses as part of incident investigations, STAA, emergency response exercises, and information availability provisions), unless otherwise stated, four years after the original effective date of the final rule; and

    • March 14, 2022—Provide regulated sources one additional year (i.e., five years after the original effective date of the final rule) to correct or resubmit RMPs to reflect new and revised data elements.

    The compliance dates of March 15, 2021 and March 14, 2022 are not affected by this rule. Therefore, the costs for the majority of the rule provisions are not affected by this rule (i.e., third-party compliance audits, root cause analyses as part of incident investigations, STAA, emergency response exercises, and information availability provisions). We are also delaying costs associated with minor rule provisions that would have become immediately effective on June 19, 2017. However, we did not estimate any costs for these provisions. These provisions include:

    • § 68.48 Safety information—revised to change “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS);”

    • § 68.50 Hazard review—revised to clarify that that the hazard review must include findings from incident investigations;

    • § 68.54 & 68.71 Training—revised to clarify that employee training requirements apply to supervisors responsible for directing process operations (under 68.54) and supervisors with process operational responsibilities (under 68.71);

    • § 68.60 & 68.81 Incident investigation—revised to require incident investigation reports to be completed within 12 months of the incident, unless the implementing agency approves, in writing, an extension of time;

    • § 68.65 Process safety information—revised to require that process safety information be kept up-to-date;

    ○ Also, changed the note to paragraph (b): To replace “Material Safety Data Sheets” with “Safety Data Sheets (SDS);” and

    • § 68.67 Process hazard analysis—revised to require that the PHA must now address the findings from all incident investigations required under § 68.81, as well as any other potential failure scenarios.

    The only major rule provision that would be affected by this rule (because its March 14, 2018 compliance date is before the delayed effective date of this rule) is the emergency response coordination provision, which has an estimated annualized cost of $16 M.22 23 Therefore, based on the costs of the provisions that would be affected by this action, EPA has concluded that this action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    22 See EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis, Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7), December 16, 2016, pp 71, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.

    23 The new compliance date for the emergency response coordination provision will be February 19, 2019, unless we propose and finalize a revised compliance date in conjunction with future revisions to the Risk Management Program Amendments.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68

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

    Dated: June 9, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12340 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255; FRL-9961-95] Spirotetramat; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of spirotetramat in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes several previously established tolerances that are superseded by this final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) and Bayer CropScience, requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 14, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 14, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Wednesday, June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40594) (FRL-9947-32) and Monday, August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL-9950-22), EPA issued documents pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PPs) by IR-4 (PP 6E8467); and Bayer CropScience (PP 6F8461). These petitions request that 40 CFR 180.641 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide spirotetramat, (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate) and its metabolites cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-2-one, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-3-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decane-2,4-dione, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl beta-D-glucopyranoside, and cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decan-2-one, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of spirotetramat, in or on several commodities as follows:

    Pesticide petition 6E8467 submitted by IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540 requests tolerances for carrot, roots at 0.15 parts per million (ppm); fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 4.5 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.25 ppm.

    Pesticide petition 6F8461 submitted by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 requests tolerances on sugar beet, molasses at 0.20 ppm and sugar beet, root at 0.15 ppm.

    Summaries of the petitions prepared by the registrant, Bayer CropScience, are available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov under document ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255. One comment was received in response to the notices of filings. EPA's response to the comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has revised the tolerance levels for several proposed commodities and corrected several commodity listings. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for spirotetramat including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with spirotetramat follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    The target organs of toxicity following subchronic and chronic oral exposures to spirotetramat were different in rats and dogs. The thyroid and thymus glands were the target organs identified in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in dogs while the testes were the target organs identified in rats. The dog was the most sensitive species, and in both rats and dogs, males were more sensitive than females. The thyroid effects in the dog consisted of lower circulating levels of thyroid hormones (T3 and/or T4) along with a reduction in follicle size, a possible indication of reduced amount of colloid. In all dog studies, thymus effects were observed (reduced size, atrophy). In the one-year study, this was described microscopically as involution.

    In rats, reported testicular effects consisted of abnormal spermatozoa and hypospermia in the epididymis, decreased testicular weights, and testicular degenerative vacuolation. An investigative subchronic study where rats were dosed with a primary enol metabolite of spirotetramat reproduced the same testicular effects as the parent chemical, suggesting that this metabolite is, at minimum, a primary contributor to the observed male reproductive toxicity. Consistent with this notion, orally administered spirotetramat was demonstrated in rats to be extensively metabolized, and males were noted to achieve much higher systemic exposures than their female counterparts, which helps explain the higher sensitivity of males. Other effects reported in a rat chronic toxicity study were associated with kidney effects consisting of decreased organ weight and tubular dilatation.

    In one- and two-generation rat reproductive toxicity studies, male reproductive toxicity (abnormal sperm cells and reproductive performance) similar to that reported in subchronic toxicity studies with adult rats was reported in the first generation (F1) males at relatively high dose levels. In all cases, a well-defined no-observed adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was established.

    There was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study with reduced fetal weight and increased incidences of malformations and skeletal deviations observed at the limit dose, while maternal effects at this dose consisted of only body-weight decrements. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to offspring following pre- or post-natal exposure to spirotetramat in the rabbit developmental or two-generation reproduction studies.

    The only evidence of neurotoxicity in the rat acute neurotoxicity study was based on decreased motor and locomotor activity, which occurred only at relatively high dose levels. The rat subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) study does not indicate a concern for neurotoxicity, even at relatively high dose levels. The results of an immunotoxicity study in rats do not indicate any functional deficits in immune function.

    There is no evidence of carcinogenicity in chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies performed in rats and mice. Spirotetramat has been classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in rodent studies. Spirotetramat was also negative for mutagenicity and clastogenicity in in vivo and in vitro assays.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by spirotetramat as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document: “Spirotetramat. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Tolerance Petition for Residues in/on Sugar Beet and Carrot and Crop Group Conversions for Tree Nut Group 14-12 and Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12.” at pages 25-30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0255.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spirotetramat used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern of the final rule published in the Federal Register of Tuesday, October 25, 2016 (81 FR 73342) (FRL-89951-80).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to spirotetramat, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing spirotetramat tolerances in 40 CFR 180.641. EPA assessed dietary exposures from spirotetramat in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for spirotetramat.

    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003 through 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT) information for all commodities and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors where available.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2003-2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used 100 PCT, average field trial residues for some commodities, and tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that spirotetramat does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    The Agency did not use percent crop treated estimates.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for spirotetramat in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of spirotetramat. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of spirotetramat and its metabolites and degradates of concern for acute exposures are estimated to be 395 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 7.99 ppb for ground water.

    Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 395 ppb for surface water and 5.36 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For both acute and chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 395 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Spirotetramat is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Citrus trees grown in residential areas and turf grass including sod farm and golf course turf only. There is the potential for post-application dermal exposure from both residential citrus tree and golf course uses. The golf course use could result in potential post-application dermal exposure; however, there is no dermal hazard and therefore, quantification of dermal risk is not necessary. For the residential citrus tree use, because the product is sold in bulk packaging for agricultural uses and the label requires that handlers wear specific clothing (e.g., long-sleeve shirt/long pants) and the use of personal-protective equipment (e.g., gloves), based on current Agency policy, EPA has made the assumption that this product is not meant for homeowner use, and therefore, there is no need to conduct a quantitative residential handler assessment.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to spirotetramat and any other substances and spirotetramat does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that spirotetramat has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of quantitative susceptibility of offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure to spirotetramat. There is evidence of qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study, where developmental effects, including reduced fetal weight and increased incidences of malformations and skeletal deviations, were observed in the presence of body weight decrements in maternal animals. However, concern is low since effects were only seen at the limit dose and selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for spirotetramat is complete.

    ii. Although spirotetramat was shown to elicit neurotoxic response in the acute neurotoxicity study; however, concern is low since the effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL values, the selected endpoints are protective of the observed neurotoxic effect, there are no neurotoxic effects seen in the subchronic neurotoxicity study, and the existing toxicological database indicates that spirotetramat is not a neurotoxic chemical.

    iii. There is no evidence of quantitative susceptibility of offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure. There is evidence of qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study; however, there is no residual uncertainty concerning these effects due to the clear NOAEL/LOAELs in the study for these effects. Moreover, concern for these effects is low since effects were only seen at the limit dose, effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity, and selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary food and drinking water exposure assessment utilizes tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT information for all commodities. The chronic dietary food and drinking water exposure assessment utilizes average field trial residues for some commodities, tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities, and 100 PCT. The chronic assessment is somewhat refined; however, since it is based on reliable data, it will not underestimate exposure and risk. There are no quantifiable potential exposure/risks from residential citrus tree and golf course uses. The drinking water assessments provide conservative, health-protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations that will not likely be exceeded. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by spirotetramat.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to spirotetramat will occupy 16% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to spirotetramat from food and water will utilize 77% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposures plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short- and intermediate-term inhalation adverse effect was identified; however, spirotetramat is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term inhalation residential exposure. In a dermal toxicity study, no evidence of dermal hazard was found; therefore, dermal risk was not included in the aggregate assessment. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risks are assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposures plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risks for spirotetramat.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, spirotetramat is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to spirotetramat residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for spirotetramat.

    C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from an anonymous source requesting that the Agency deny IR-4's petition for use of spirotetramat on all food items claiming it is a toxic chemical and its use would result in harm to humans.

    The Agency's Response: The Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that certain pesticides are “toxic chemicals” that should not be permitted in our food; however, the commenter provided no information demonstrating toxicity of spirotetramat or that EPA could use to evaluate the safety of the pesticide. The existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. When new or amended tolerances are requested for residues of a pesticide in food or feed, the Agency, as is required by Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), estimates the risk of the potential exposure to these residues. The Agency has concluded after this risk assessment, which includes the consideration of long-term animal studies with spirotetramat, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate human exposure to spirotetramat and that, accordingly, the use of spirotetramat on petitioned-for food commodities is “safe.”

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on available residue data, EPA is establishing tolerance level on sugar beet molasses at 0.30 ppm instead of 0.20 ppm, to cover anticipated residues. In addition, EPA corrected the commodity terminology for “sugar beet root” and “sugar beet molasses” to “beet, sugar, roots” and “beet, sugar, molasses,” respectively, in order to conform to terms used in the Agency's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of spirotetramat, (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate) and its metabolites cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-2-one, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-3-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decane-2,4-dione, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl beta-D-glucopyranoside, and cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decan-2-one, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of spirotetramat, in or on beet, sugar, molasses at 0.30 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.15 ppm; carrot, roots at 0.15 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 4.5 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.25 ppm. In addition, EPA is revoking the existing tolerances for fruit, stone, group 12 and nut, tree, group 14 as they are superseded by the new tolerances for groups 12-12 and 14-12 established under this final rule.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 8, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.641, in the table in paragraph (a)(1): i. Add alphabetically the entries: “Beet, sugar, molasses”; “Beet, sugar, roots”; “Carrot, roots”; “Fruit, stone, group 12-12”; and “Nut, tree, group 14-12”; and ii. Remove entries for “Fruit, stone, group 12” and “Nut, tree, group 14”.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 180.641 Spirotetramat; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Beet, sugar, molasses 0.30 Beet, sugar, roots 0.15 *    *    *    *    * Carrot, roots 0.15 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, stone, group 12-12 4.5 *    *    *    *    * Nut, tree, group 14-12 0.25 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2017-12348 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263; FRL-9961-80] Isofetamid; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of isofetamid in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. ISK Biosciences Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The regulation also removes the existing time-limited tolerances for residues on “bushberry subgroup 13-07B” and “caneberry subgroup 13-07A” because they are no longer needed as a result of this action.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 14, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 14, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9555) (FRL-9956-86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F8457) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Rd., Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.681 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide isofetamid, N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-[2-methyl-4-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide, in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 3.0 parts per million (ppm); apple, wet pomace, at 2.0 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 6.0 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; cherry subgroup 12-12A at 5.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.6 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-7E at 9.0 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, except cowpea and field pea at 0.05 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, except cowpea at 0.04 ppm; peach subgroup 12-12B at 3.0 ppm; plum, prune, dried at 3.5 ppm; plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.8 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; and vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 1.5 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised some of the proposed tolerances; determined that tolerances for residues in livestock commodities are not required; and corrected some of the commodity definitions. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for isofetamid including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with isofetamid follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The toxicology database is complete for isofetamid. In repeated dose studies, the liver was the primary target organ in the rat, mouse, and dog, as indicated by increased liver weights, changes in the clinical chemistry values, and liver hypertrophy. A second target organ was the thyroid in the rat and dog, as indicated by changes in thyroid weights and histopathology. Adrenal weight changes were observed in the subchronic rat and dog studies. In the rat and dog, the dose levels where toxicity was observed were similar or higher in the chronic studies compared with the respective subchronic studies, showing an absence of progression of liver toxicity with time. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat or mouse cancer studies; the mutagenicity battery was negative. There are no genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, or immunotoxicity concerns observed in the available toxicity studies. Developmental toxicity was not observed in the rat or rabbit, and offspring effects such as decreased body weight were seen only in the presence of parental toxicity in the multi-generation rat study. Isofetamid is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the absence of increased tumor incidence in acceptable/guideline carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. Isofetamid is not acutely toxic; it is classified as Toxicity Category III for acute oral and dermal exposure, and Toxicity Category IV for inhalation exposure. Furthermore, it is not irritating to the eye or skin, and it is not a dermal sensitizer.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by isofetamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Isofetamid. Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Agricultural Uses on Bushberry, Subgroup 13-07B; Caneberry, Subgroup 13-07A; Cherry, Subgroup 12-12A; Dried Shelled Pea and Bean, Except Soybean, Subgroup 6C; Edible-Podded Legume Vegetables, Subgroup 6A; Peach, Subgroup 12-12B; Plum, Subgroup 12-12C; Pome Fruit, Group 11-10; Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Except Grape, Subgroup 13-07E; Succulent Shelled Pea and Bean, Subgroup 6B; as well as Livestock Commodities; in Addition to Uses on Ornamental Plants (including Residential Use Sites). pages 12-18 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for isofetamid used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45440) (FRL-9923-86).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to isofetamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing isofetamid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.681. EPA assessed dietary exposures from isofetamid in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for isofetamid; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. An unrefined chronic (food and drinking water) dietary assessment was conducted for all registered and proposed food uses of isofetamid using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). The chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessment for isofetamid incorporated existing tolerance-level residues, Agency-recommended tolerance-level residues for proposed tolerances, DEEM default processing factors, and 100 PCT (percent crop treated). Some tolerance levels were adjusted to include residues of the metabolite, GPTC (a residue of concern for risk assessment). DEEM default processing factors were used for dried apples, apple juice, dried pear, cherry juice, dried apricot, dried peach, plum, prune juice, cranberry juice, and grape juice. The EDWC of 110 microgram/Liter (µg/L) was incorporated directly into the dietary assessment.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that isofetamid does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for isofetamid. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for isofetamid in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of isofetamid. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Pesticide Flooded Application Model and the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of isofetamid for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 110 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 43 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 110 ppb was used to assess the contribution from drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Isofetamid is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turfgrass including golf courses, residential lawns, and recreational turfgrass. It is currently under review for registering use on ornamental plants. The proposed ornamental use is not intended for homeowner use and therefore a quantitative residential handler assessment was not conducted. Additionally, post-application exposures for adults and children are expected to be negligible. However, the existing turf use may result in short- and intermediate-term exposures. Residential exposure may occur by the dermal and incidental oral routes of exposures following the application of isofetamid on residential turf. However, since dermal hazard has not been identified for isofetamid, the only exposure scenario quantitatively assessed is for post-application incidental oral (for children 1 to <2 years old). These exposures have been assessed with current policies, which include the Agency's 2012 Residential Standard Operating Procedures (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html) along with policy changes for body weight assumptions.

    Even though a previous risk assessment identified residential handler risk estimates for use in aggregate assessment, based on current policy and that isofetamid products are intended for sale/use to/by professional applicators, residential handler exposure assessments for turf are no longer applicable to the isofetamid aggregate risk assessment. Therefore, the aggregate assessment for this action only includes a risk contribution from residential post-application incidental oral exposure for children 1 to <2 years old.

    There is the potential for post-application exposure for individuals as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with isofetamid such as residential ornamental lawns. Since dermal hazard has not been identified for isofetamid, a quantitative assessment for dermal exposure is not necessary and the only exposure scenarios quantitatively assessed are for children 1 to <2 years old who may experience short-term incidental oral exposure to isofetamid from treated turf. Intermediate-term incidental oral post-application exposures are possible (i.e., from soil ingestion due to the persistence of isofetamid); however, the short-term incidental oral exposures are protective of the possible intermediate-term incidental oral exposures because the POD for both durations is the same. Post-application inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible for the proposed residential uses.

    The post-application incidental oral MOE values were calculated based on the scenario of liquid application of isofetamid to turf. Post-application risk estimates for all incidental oral scenarios are not of concern (MOEs range from 5,900 to 4,000,000). The incidental oral scenarios (i.e., hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth) should be considered inter-related and it is likely that they occur interspersed amongst each other across time. However, combining these scenarios would be overly-conservative because of the conservative nature of each individual assessment. Incidental oral risk estimates are highly conservative because the short- and intermediate-term incidental oral POD is based on a 90-day exposure duration which represents daily exposure for 90 days. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found isofetamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and isofetamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that isofetamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of developmental toxicity or reproductive susceptibility, and there are no residual uncertainties concerning pre- or post-natal toxicity or exposure.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for isofetamid is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that isofetamid is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that isofetamid results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to isofetamid in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by isofetamid.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, isofetamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to isofetamid from food and water will utilize 4.0% of the cPAD for children (1-2 years old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of isofetamid is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Isofetamid is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to isofetamid.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 1,600 for children (1-2 years old). Because EPA's level of concern for isofetamid is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, isofetamid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for isofetamid.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, isofetamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to isofetamid residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method is available to enforce the tolerance expression. Multiresidue methods testing data have been submitted for isofetamid and GPTC. The data indicate that multiresidue methods are not suitable for analysis of isofetamid and GPTC, so the multiresidue methods cannot serve as enforcement methods. The multiresidue data have been forwarded to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established MRLs for isofetamid. There are no Canadian, Codex, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for isofetamid in/on the commodities included in this petition.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    All tolerance levels are based upon the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures. Thus, the tolerance levels established in this notice for isofetamid in/on bushberry, subgroup 13-07B; cherry, subgroup 12-12A; plum, prune, dried; dried shelled pea and bean, except soybean, subgroup 6C; and succulent shelled pea and bean, subgroup 6B are lower than those requested by the petitioner. The tolerance levels established in this notice for caneberry, subgroup 13-07A and fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-07E are higher than those requested by the petitioner based on the OECD calculation procedures.

    Additionally, the Agency has determined that tolerances requested for residues in livestock commodities are not required. These tolerances fall under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3) regarding secondary residues in livestock commodities, i.e., it is not possible to establish with certainty whether finite residues will be incurred, but there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues.

    The following commodity definitions have been corrected: Bushberry subgroup 13-07B; fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-07E; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C; and pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of isofetamid, in or on apple, wet pomace, at 2.0 parts per million (ppm); bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 5.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm; cherry subgroup 12-12A at 4.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.60 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-07E at 10.0 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, at 0.040 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, at 0.030 ppm; peach subgroup 12-12B at 3.0 ppm; plum, prune, dried at 1.50 ppm; plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.80 ppm; and vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 1.50 ppm. Additionally, the existing time-limited tolerances are being removed for both Caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm, and for Bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 5.0 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Section 180.681 is amended as follows: a. In the table in paragraph (a) alphabetically add the following commodities: “Apple, wet pomace”; “Bushberry subgroup 13-07B”; “Caneberry subgroup 13-07A”; “Cherry subgroup 12-12A”; “Fruit, pome, group 11-10”; “Fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-07E”; “Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C”; “Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B”; “Peach subgroup 12-12B”; “Plum, Prune, Dried”; “Plum subgroup 12-12C”; “Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A”. b. Paragraph (b) is revised.

    The additions and revision read as follows:

    § 180.681 Isofetamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Apple, wet pomace 2.0 Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 5.0 Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 4.0 *    *    *    *    * Cherry subgroup 12-12A 4.0 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, pome, group 11-10 0.60 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-07E 10.0 *    *    *    *    * Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C 0.040 Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B 0.030 Peach subgroup 12-12B 3.0 Plum, Prune, Dried 1.50 Plum subgroup 12-12C 0.80 *    *    *    *    * Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A 1.50

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2017-12346 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 441 [EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0693; FRL-9957-10-OW] RIN 2040-AF26 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental Category AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating technology-based pretreatment standards under the Clean Water Act to reduce discharges of mercury from dental offices into municipal sewage treatment plants known as publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). This final rule requires dental offices to use amalgam separators and two best management practices recommended by the American Dental Association (ADA). This final rule includes a provision to significantly reduce and streamline the oversight and reporting requirements in EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations that would otherwise apply as a result of this rulemaking. EPA expects compliance with this final rule will annually reduce the discharge of mercury by 5.1 tons as well as 5.3 tons of other metals found in waste dental amalgam to POTWs.

    DATES:

    The final rule is effective on July 14, 2017. The compliance date, meaning the date that existing sources subject to the rule must comply with the standards in this rule is July 14, 2020. After the effective date of the rule, new sources subject to this rule must comply immediately with the standards in this rule. In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this regulation shall be considered issued for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on June 28, 2017. Under section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of this regulation can be had only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals within 120 days after the regulation is considered issued for purposes of judicial review. Under section 509(b)(2), the requirements in this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0693. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. This material can be viewed at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov. A detailed record index, organized by subject, is available on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/eg/dental-effluent-guidelines .

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information, see EPA's Web site: https://www.epa.gov/eg/dental-effluent-guidelines. For technical information, contact Ms. Karen Milam, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone: 202-566-1915; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Regulated Entities and Supporting Information A. Regulated Entities B. Supporting Information II. Legal Authority III. Executive Summary IV. Background A. Legal Framework 1. Clean Water Act 2. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards a. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) b. Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT)/New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) c. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) d. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) e. Best Management Practices (BMPs) B. Dental Sector Rulemaking History and Summary of Public Comments C. Existing State and Local Program Requirements D. Roles and Responsibilities Under the National Pretreatment Program E. Minamata Convention on Mercury V. Description of Dental Industry & Dental Amalgam Wastewater Sources and Management A. Dental Industry B. Dental Amalgam Wastewater Sources and Management 1. Amalgam Separators 2. Polishing To Remove Dissolved Mercury From Wastewater 3. Wastewater Retention Tanks 4. Best Management Practices VI. Final Rule A. Scope and General Applicability B. Existing Source (PSES) Option Selection C. New Source (PSNS) Option Selection D. Requirements 1. Performance Standard 2. Applicability to Dental Offices That Do Not Place or Remove Dental Amalgam 3. Dental Discharger Reporting and On-Site Paperwork Compliance Requirements 4. Control Authority Oversight/Reporting 5. Interaction With Existing State and Local Mandatory Dental Amalgam Reduction Programs 6. Variances E. Pollutants of Concern and Pass-Through Analysis VII. Technology Costs A. Costs for Model Dental Offices B. Costs for Larger Institutional Dental Offices VIII. Pollutant Loads A. National Estimate of Annual Pollutant Reductions to POTWs Associated With This Rule 1. Mercury 2. Other Metals 3. Total Reductions B. National Estimate of Annual Pollutant Reductions to Surface Waters Associated With This Rule IX. Economic Impact Analysis A. Social Cost Estimates B. Economic Impact 1. Cost-to-Revenue Analysis 2. Ratio of Rule's Capital Costs to Total Dental Office Capital Assets 3. Comparison of the Rule's Capital Costs to Annual Dental Office Capital Replacement Costs C. Economic Achievability X. Cost Effectiveness Analysis XI. Environmental Assessment A. Environmental Impacts B. Environmental Benefits XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts Associated With the Technology Basis of the Rule A. Energy Requirements B. Air Emissions C. Solid Waste Generation XIII. Standards for Reference XIV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act I. Regulated Entities and Supporting Information A. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

    Category Example of regulated entity North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code Industry A general dentistry practice or large dental facility 621210

    This section is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated or affected by this final rule. Other types of entities that do not meet the above criteria could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this final rule, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria listed in § 441.10 and the definitions in § 441.20 of this final rule and detailed further in Section VI of this preamble. If you still have questions regarding the applicability of this final rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. Supporting Information

    This final rule is supported by a number of documents including the Technical and Economic Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental Category (TEDD), Document No. EPA-821-R-16-005. The TEDD and additional records are available in the public record for this final rule and on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/eg/dental-effluent-guidelines.

    II. Legal Authority

    EPA promulgates this regulation under the authorities of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and pursuant to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.

    III. Executive Summary

    The purpose of this final rule is to set a uniform national standard that will greatly reduce the discharge of mercury-containing dental amalgam to municipal sewage treatment plants, known as POTWs, in the United States. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that bioaccumulates in fish and shellfish, and mercury pollution is widespread and a global concern that originates from many diverse sources such as air deposition from municipal and industrial incinerators and combustion of fossil fuels. Across the U.S., 12 states and at least 18 localities have established mandatory programs to reduce discharges of mercury to POTWs. As a result of these efforts, along with outreach from the ADA to promote voluntary actions to reduce such discharges, approximately 40 percent of the dentists subject to this rule already have installed amalgam separators. Amalgam separators greatly reduce the discharge of mercury-containing amalgam to POTWs. Amalgam separators are a practical, affordable and readily available technology for capturing mercury at dental offices. The mercury collected by these separators can be recycled. This rule will ensure that mercury discharges to POTWs are effectively controlled at dental offices that discharge wastewater to POTWs.

    Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to identify the sources of mercury entering POTWs. According to the 2002 Mercury Source Control and Pollution Prevention Program Evaluation Final Report (DCN DA00006) prepared by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), dental offices are the main source of mercury discharges to POTWs. A study funded by the ADA published in 2005 estimated that dental offices contributed 50 percent of mercury entering POTWs (DCN DA00163). Mercury is discharged in the form of waste dental amalgam when dentists remove old amalgam fillings from cavities, and from excess amalgam waste when a dentist places a new amalgam filling.

    While dental offices are not a major contributor of mercury to the environment generally, dental offices are the main source of mercury discharges to POTWs. EPA estimates that across the United States 5.1 tons of mercury and an additional 5.3 tons of other metals found in waste dental amalgam are collectively discharged into POTWs annually. Mercury entering POTWs frequently partitions into the sludge, the solid material that remains after wastewater is treated. Mercury from waste amalgam therefore can make its way into the environment from the POTW through the incineration, landfilling, or land application of sludge or through surface water discharge. Once released into the aquatic environment, certain bacteria can change mercury into methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury that bioaccumulates in fish and shellfish. In the U.S., consumption of fish and shellfish is the main source of methylmercury exposure to humans. Removing mercury when it is in a concentrated and easy to manage form in dental amalgam, before it becomes diluted and difficult and costly to remove, is a common sense step to prevent mercury from being released into the environment where it can become a hazard to humans.

    The ADA, which supported removal and recycling of mercury from wastewater discharged to POTWs in its comments on the 2014 proposed rule (See DCN EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0693-0434), developed best management practices (BMPs) to facilitate this goal and shared its recommendations widely with the dental community (DCN DA00165). The ADA's voluntary amalgam waste handling and disposal practices include the use of amalgam separators to reduce mercury discharges. In addition, some states and localities have implemented mandatory programs to reduce dental mercury discharges that include the use of amalgam separators.

    EPA has concluded that requiring dental offices to remove mercury through relatively low-cost and readily available amalgam separators and BMPs makes sense. Capturing mercury-laden waste where it is created prevents it from being released into the environment. This final rule controls mercury discharges to POTWs by establishing a performance standard for amalgam process wastewater based on the use of amalgam separator technology. The rule also requires dental dischargers to adopt two BMPs, one which prohibits the discharge of waste (“or scrap”), and the other which prohibits the use of line cleaners that may lead to the dissolution of solid mercury when cleaning chair-side traps and vacuum lines.

    In addition, the rule minimizes the administrative burden on dental offices subject to the rule, as well as on federal, state, and local regulatory authorities responsible for oversight and enforcement of the new standard. Administrative burden was a concern of many of the commenters on the 2014 proposed rule and EPA has greatly reduced that burden through streamlining the administrative requirements in this final rule.

    When EPA establishes categorical pretreatment requirements, it triggers additional oversight and reporting requirements in EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations. The General Pretreatment Regulations specify that Control Authorities (which are often the state or POTW) are responsible for administering and enforcing pretreatment standards, including receiving and reviewing compliance reports. While other industries subject to categorical pretreatment standards typically consist of tens to hundreds of facilities, the dental industry consists of approximately 130,000 offices. Application of the default General Pretreatment Regulation oversight and reporting requirements to such a large number of facilities would be much more challenging. Further, dental office discharges differ from other industries for which EPA has established categorical pretreatment standards. Both the volume of wastewater discharged and the quantity of pollutants in the discharge on a per facility basis are significantly less than other industries for which EPA has established categorical pretreatment standards. Accordingly, this final rule exempts dental offices from the General Pretreatment Regulations' oversight and reporting requirements associated with categorical pretreatment standards, reflecting EPA's recognition that the otherwise-applicable regulatory framework for categorical dischargers would be unlikely to have a significant positive impact on overall compliance with the rule across the dental industry, while imposing a substantial burden on state and local regulating authorities.

    In order to simplify implementation and compliance for the dental offices and the regulating authorities, the final rule establishes that dental dischargers are not Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) as defined in 40 CFR part 403, and are not Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) or “industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment standards” as those terms and variations are used in the General Pretreatment Regulations, unless designated such by the Control Authority. While this rule establishes pretreatment standards that require dental offices to reduce dental amalgam discharges, the rule does not require Control Authorities to implement the traditional suite of oversight requirements in the General Pretreatment Regulations that become applicable upon the promulgation of categorical pretreatment standards for an industrial category. This significantly reduces the reporting requirements for dental dischargers that would otherwise apply by instead requiring them to demonstrate compliance with the performance standard and BMPs through a one-time compliance report to their Control Authority. This regulatory approach also eliminates the additional oversight requirements for Control Authorities that are typically associated with SIUs, such as permitting and annual inspections of individual dental offices. It also eliminates additional reporting requirements for the Control Authorities typically associated with CIUs, such as identification of CIUs in their annual pretreatment reports. At the same time, the final rule recognizes the Control Authority's discretionary authority to treat a dental discharger as an SIU and/or CIU if, in the Control Authority's judgement, it is necessary.

    EPA estimated the annual costs associated with this rule. EPA's analysis reflects that many dental offices have already taken steps to reduce dental amalgam discharges by discontinuing the use of dental amalgam, adopting the ADA's voluntary best practices, or by meeting existing mandatory state or local requirements. On a national basis, EPA estimates that approximately 40 percent of dental offices subject to this final rule already use amalgam separators (DCN DA00456). Of the remaining 60 percent of dental offices that do not have amalgam separators and that are subject to this final rule, EPA estimates that 20 percent do not place or remove dental amalgam (DCN DA00161). These dentists that do not place or remove dental amalgam—which correspond to 12 percent of the dental offices subject to this final rule—will incur little to no costs as a result of the rule. EPA estimates the remainder (representing 48 percent of the dental offices subject to this final rule) will incur an approximate average annual cost of $800 per office. The total annual cost of this final rule is projected to be $59-$61 million.

    This final rule will produce human health and ecological benefits by reducing the estimated annual nationwide POTW discharge of dental mercury to surface water from 1,003 pounds to 11 pounds. Studies show that decreased point-source discharges of mercury to surface water have resulted in lower methylmercury concentrations in fish, and that such reductions can result in quantifiable economic benefits from improved human health and ecological conditions (DCN DA00148). While not quantified, as noted above, this rule will also reduce mercury releases to the environment associated with the incineration, landfilling, or land application of POTW sludges. Instead, EPA expects all of the collected amalgam will be recycled, rather than released back into the environment.

    IV. Background A. Legal Framework 1. Clean Water Act

    Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting our nation's waters. Among its core provisions, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the U.S. except as authorized under the CWA. Under section 402 of the CWA, EPA authorizes discharges by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The CWA establishes a two- pronged approach for these permits: Technology-based controls that establish the floor of performance for all dischargers, and water quality-based limits where the technology-based limits are insufficient for the discharge to meet applicable water quality standards. To serve as the basis for the technology-based controls, the CWA authorizes EPA to establish national technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for discharges from different categories of point sources, such as industrial, commercial, and public sources, that discharge directly into waters of the U.S.

    Direct dischargers (those discharging directly to surface waters) must comply with effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Technology-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits for direct dischargers are derived from effluent limitations guidelines (CWA sections 301 and 304) and new source performance standards (CWA section 306) promulgated by EPA, or based on best professional judgment where EPA has not promulgated an applicable effluent guideline or new source performance standard (CWA section 402(a)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 125.3). The effluent guidelines and new source performance standards established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology, as specified in the Act.

    EPA promulgates national effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance for major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants (total suspended solids, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, and pH) as outlined in CWA section 304(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16; (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc) as outlined in section 307(a) of the Act, 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 CFR part 423, appendix A; and (3) non-conventional pollutants, which are those pollutants that are not categorized as conventional or toxic (e.g., ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and phosphorus).

    The CWA also authorizes EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge pollutants indirectly, by sending wastewater to POTWs, as outlined in sections 307(b), (c) and 304(g) of the CWA. EPA establishes national pretreatment standards for those pollutants that may pass through, interfere with, or may otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations. CWA sections 307(b) and (c) and 304(g). The legislative history of the 1977 CWA amendments explains that pretreatment standards are technology-based and analogous to technology-based effluent limitations for direct dischargers for the removal of toxic pollutants. As further explained in the legislative history, the combination of pretreatment and treatment by the POTW is intended to achieve the level of treatment that would be required if the industrial source were making a direct discharge. Conf. Rep. No. 95-830, at 87 (1977), reprinted in U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works (1978), A Legislative History of the CWA of 1977, Serial No. 95-14 at 271 (1978). As such, in establishing pretreatment standards, EPA's consideration of pass through for national technology-based categorical pretreatment standards differs from that described in EPA's General Pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR part 403. For categorical pretreatment standards, EPA's approach for pass through satisfies two competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of the POTWs be recognized and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers. CWA 301(b)(1)(A)(BPT); and 301(b)(1)(E).

    2. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

    EPA develops Effluent Guidelines Limitations and Standards (ELGs) that are technology-based regulations for specific categories of dischargers. EPA bases these regulations on the performance of control and treatment technologies. The legislative history of CWA section 304(b), which is the heart of the effluent guidelines program, describes the need to press toward higher levels of control through research and development of new processes, modifications, replacement of obsolete plants and processes, and other improvements in technology, taking into account the cost of controls. Congress has also stated that EPA need not consider water quality impacts on individual water bodies as the guidelines are developed; see Statement of Senator Muskie (October 4, 1972), reprinted in U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Serial No. 93-1, at 170).

    There are standards applicable to direct dischargers (dischargers to surface waters) and standards applicable to indirect dischargers (dischargers to POTWs). The types of standards relevant to this rulemaking are summarized here.

    a. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

    BAT represents the second level of stringency for controlling direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. In general, BAT-based effluent guidelines and new source performance standards represent the best available economically achievable performance of facilities in the industrial subcategory or category. Following the statutory language, EPA considers the technological availability and the economic achievability in determining what level of control represents BAT. CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). Other statutory factors that EPA considers in assessing BAT are the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, and non- water quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

    b. Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT)/New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

    NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control technology (BADCT). Owners of new facilities have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the BADCT for all pollutants (that is, conventional, nonconventional, and toxic pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. CWA section 306(b)(1)(B).

    c. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

    Pretreatment standards apply to dischargers of pollutants to POTWs; Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants to POTWs that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs, including sludge disposal methods of POTWs. Categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines, and thus the Agency typically considers the same factors in promulgating PSES as it considers in promulgating BAT. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986).

    d. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

    Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. New indirect discharges have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities the best available demonstrated technologies. In establishing pretreatment standards for new sources, the Agency typically considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS (BADCT).

    e. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

    Section 304(e) of the CWA authorizes the Administrator to publish regulations, in addition to effluent limitations guidelines and standards for certain toxic or hazardous pollutants, “to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage which the Administrator determines are associated with or ancillary to the industrial manufacturing or treatment process . . . and may contribute significant amounts of such pollutants to navigable waters.” In addition, section 304(g), read in concert with section 501(a), authorizes EPA to prescribe as wide a range of pretreatment requirements as the Administrator deems appropriate in order to control and prevent the discharge into navigable waters, either directly or through POTWs, any pollutant which interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is incompatible with such treatment works. (see also Citizens Coal Council v. U.S. EPA, 447 F3d 879, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2006) (upholding EPA's use of non-numeric effluent limitations and standards); Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 496-97, 502 (2d Cir. 2005) (EPA use of non-numerical effluent limitations in the form of BMPs are effluent limitations under the CWA); and Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400, 403 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“section 502(11) [of the CWA] defines `effluent limitation' as ‘any restriction’ on the amounts of pollutants discharged, not just a numerical restriction.”))

    B. Dental Category Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking History and Summary of Public Comments

    EPA published the proposed rule on October 22, 2014, and took public comment through February 20, 2015. During the public comment period, EPA received approximately 200 comments. EPA also held a public hearing on November 10, 2014. Administrative burden was a concern of many of the commenters on the 2014 proposed rule, particularly from regulatory authorities responsible for oversight and enforcement of the new standard. Commenters also provided additional information on amalgam separators (e.g., costs, models, and design) as well as information on some other approaches to reduce pollutant discharges from dentists. Commenters also offered ways to improve and/or clarify the proposed pretreatment standards, including the proposed numerical efficiency and operation and maintenance requirements. See DCN DA00516 for these comments and EPA's responses.

    C. Existing State and Local Program Requirements

    Currently, 12 states (Connecticut, Louisiana,1 Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) have mandatory programs to reduce dental mercury discharges. Additionally, at least 18 localities (located in California, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin) similarly have mandatory dental amalgam reduction pretreatment programs. EPA analyzed readily available information about these programs and found commonalities (DCN DA00524). For example, all require the use of amalgam separators and most specify associated operating and maintenance requirements. The majority of these programs also require some type of best management practices, and at least a one-time compliance report to the regulating authority.

    1 Louisiana state requirements do not explicitly require dental offices to install amalgam separators; dental offices must follow BMPs recommended by the ADA in 1999. ADA added amalgam separators to the list of BMPs in 2008.

    D. Roles and Responsibilities Under the National Pretreatment Program

    The National Pretreatment Program requires industrial dischargers that discharge to POTWs to comply with pretreatment standards. The General Pretreatment Regulations in 40 CFR part 403 establish roles and responsibilities for entities involved in the implementation of pretreatment standards. This section summarizes the roles and responsibilities of Industrial Users (IUs), Control Authorities, and Approval Authorities. For a detailed description, see the preamble for the proposed rule (79 FR 63279-63280; October 22, 2014).

    An IU is a nondomestic source of indirect discharge into a POTW, and in this rule is the dental discharger. The Control Authority may be the POTW, the state, or EPA, depending on whether the POTW or the state is approved by EPA to administer the pretreatment program. The Control Authority is the POTW in cases where the POTW has an approved pretreatment program. The Control Authority is the state, where the POTW has not been approved to administer the pretreatment program, but the state has been approved. The Control Authority is EPA where neither the POTW nor the state have been approved to administer the pretreatment program. The Approval Authority is the State (Director) in an NPDES authorized state with an approved pretreatment program; or the EPA regional administrator in a non-NPDES authorized state or NPDES state without an approved state pretreatment program.

    Typically, an IU is responsible for demonstrating compliance with pretreatment standards by performing self-monitoring, submitting reports and notifications to its Control Authority, and maintaining records of activities associated with its discharge to the POTW. The Control Authority is the regulating authority responsible for implementing and enforcing pretreatment standards. The General Pretreatment Regulations require certain minimum oversight of IUs by Control Authorities. The required minimum oversight includes receipt and analysis of reports and notifications submitted by IUs, random sampling and analyzing effluent from IUs, and conducting surveillance activities to identify occasional and continuing non-compliance with pretreatment standards. The Control Authority is also responsible for taking enforcement action as necessary. For IUs that are designated as Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), Control Authorities must inspect and sample the SIU effluent annually, review the need for a slug control plan, and issue a permit or equivalent control mechanism. IUs subject to categorical pretreatment standards are referred to as Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). The General Pretreatment Regulations define SIU to include CIUs. The Approval Authority is responsible for ensuring that POTWs comply with all applicable pretreatment program requirements. Among other things, the Approval Authority receives annual pretreatment reports from the Control Authority. These reports must identify which IUs are CIUs.

    E. Minamata Convention on Mercury

    On November 6, 2013, the United States joined the Minamata Convention on Mercury, a new multilateral environmental agreement that addresses specific human activities that are contributing to widespread mercury pollution. The agreement identifies dental amalgam as a mercury-added product for which certain measures should be taken. Specifically, the Convention lists nine measures for phasing down the use of mercury in dental amalgam, including promoting the use of best environmental practices in dental offices to reduce releases of mercury and mercury compounds to water and land. Nations that are parties to the Convention are required to implement at least two of the nine measures to address dental amalgam. This final rule contributes to the U.S.'s efforts to meet the measures called for in the treaty.

    V. Description of Dental Industry & Dental Amalgam Wastewater Sources and Management A. Dental Industry

    The industry category affected by this final rule is Offices of Dentists (NAICS 621210), which comprises establishments of health practitioners primarily engaged in the independent practice of general or specialized dentistry, or dental surgery. These practitioners operate individual or group practices in their own offices or in the offices of others, such as hospitals or health maintenance organization medical centers. They can provide either comprehensive preventive, cosmetic, or emergency care, or specialize in a single field of dentistry.

    According to the 2012 Economic Census, there are 133,221 U.S. dental offices owned or operated by 125,275 dental firms.2 Only 2 percent of all dental firms are multi-unit, the rest are single-unit. The growth of the number of dental offices remained steady over the past decade with an average increase of 1 percent per year.

    2 A firm is a business organization, such as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation.

    The industry includes mostly small businesses with an estimated over 99 percent of all offices falling below the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard ($7.5 million in annual revenue). Using Census Bureau data, EPA estimates an average revenue for offices at $787,190 per year with an average of 6.6 employees per establishment.

    According to ADA data, approximately 80 percent of the dental industry engages in general dentistry. Approximately 20 percent are specialty dentists such as periodontists, orthodontists, radiologists, maxillofacial surgeons, endodontists, or prosthodontists (DCN DA00460).

    Dentistry may also be performed at larger institutional dental offices (military clinics and dental schools). Since EPA does not know if these offices are included in the 2012 Economic Census data, EPA conservatively assumed the largest offices are not present in the data, and so added an estimate of 415 larger institutional dental offices across the nation. For the final rule, EPA updated this number based on comments received on the proposed rule.

    B. Dental Amalgam Wastewater Sources and Management

    Dental amalgam consists of approximately 49 percent mercury by weight. Mercury is the only metal that is in its liquid phase at room temperature, and it bonds well with powdered alloy. This contributes to its durability in dental amalgam. The other half of dental amalgam is usually composed of 35 percent silver, 9 percent tin, 6 percent copper, 1 percent zinc and small amounts of indium and palladium (DCN DA00131).

    Sources of dental amalgam discharges generally occur in the course of two categories of activities. The first category of discharges may occur in the course of treating a patient, such as during the placement or removal of a filling. When filling a cavity, dentists overfill the tooth cavity so that the filling can be carved to the proper shape. The excess amalgam is typically rinsed into a cuspidor, or suctioned out of the patient's mouth. In addition to filling new cavities, dentists also remove old restorations that are worn or damaged. Removed restorations also may be rinsed into a cuspidor or suctioned out of the patient's mouth. Based on information in the record (DCN DA00456), removed restorations is the largest contributor of mercury in dental discharges.

    The second category of dental amalgam discharges occurs in the course of activities not directly involved with the placement or removal of dental amalgam. Preparation of dental amalgam, disposing of excess amalgam, and flushing vacuum lines with corrosive chemicals present opportunities for dental amalgam to be discharged.

    The use of dental amalgam has decreased steadily since the late 1970s as alternative materials such as composite resins and glass ionomers have become more widely available. Estimates show that placements of dental amalgam have decreased on average by about 2 to 3% per year (74 FR 38686; August 4, 2009). Based on this information, EPA estimates that mercury in dental amalgam discharges to POTWs will decrease by about half within the next 25 years. While the use of dental amalgam continues to decline, EPA estimates that approximately 2 tons of mercury would continue to be discharged to POTWs in 2040.

    The typical plumbing configuration in a dental office consists of a chair-side trap for each chair, and a central vacuum pump with a vacuum pump filter. Chair-side traps and vacuum pump filters remove approximately 78 percent of dental amalgam particles from the wastewater stream (DCN DA00163). EPA identified three major technologies that capture dental amalgam waste, in addition to chair-side traps and vacuum pump filters, before it is discharged to the POTW: Separators, ion exchange, and wastewater containment systems. EPA also identified BMPs that have a significant impact on dental amalgam discharges.

    1. Amalgam Separators

    An amalgam separator is a device designed to remove solids from dental office wastewater. Amalgam separators remove amalgam particles from the wastewater through centrifugation, sedimentation, filtration, or a combination of any of these methods. Practically all amalgam separators on the market today rely on sedimentation because of its effectiveness and operational simplicity.

    The vast majority of amalgam separators on the market today have been evaluated for their ability to meet the current American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) Standard for Amalgam Separators (ANSI/ADA Standard No. 108 for Amalgam Separators). This standard incorporates the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard for Dental Amalgam Separators (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42288).3 The current ISO standard for amalgam separators is ISO 11143. ISO established a standard for measuring amalgam separator efficiency by evaluating the retention of amalgam solids using specified test procedures in a laboratory setting. In order to meet the ISO standard, a separator must achieve 95 percent removal or greater of total solids. The ISO standard also includes certain design requirements and requirements for instructions for proper use and maintenance. For example, for non-sedimentation amalgam separators, the ISO 11143 standard requires a warning system such as an auditory or visual sign to indicate when the separator's efficiency is compromised to ensure that the operator is aware that the separator is not operating optimally. For sedimentation separators, the requirement can be met by providing instructions that would allow the operator to ascertain the operating status of the amalgam separator.

    3 ANSI is the coordinator of the U.S. voluntary consensus standards system. An ISO document may be nationally adopted as an ANS as written or with modifications to its content that reflect technical deviations to the ISO standard that have been agreed upon through a consensus process. In other words, a consensus of U.S. experts, in an open and due process based environment, agreed that ISO 11143 with U.S. modifications is appropriate for adoption as an ANS.

    Based on reported removal efficiencies of a range of amalgam separators currently on the market that meet the ISO standard, separators obtain a median of 99 percent removal efficiency (see Chapter 7 of the TEDD) of total dental solids. When existing chair-side traps and vacuum pump filters are used upstream of the amalgam separators, the combined treatment system can achieve total mercury removal rates exceeding 99 percent (DCN DA00008).

    Solids collected by the amalgam separator may be a combination of dental amalgam, biological material from patients, and any other solid material sent down the vacuum line. The collected solids must be handled in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. EPA regulates the disposal of mercury-containing hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A mercury-containing waste can be considered hazardous in two ways: (1) As a listed hazardous waste; or (2) as a characteristic hazardous waste. Unused elemental mercury being discarded would be a listed hazardous waste (waste code U151). Persons who generate hazardous waste, such as a waste that exhibits the hazardous characteristics for mercury, are subject to specific requirements for the proper management and disposal of that waste. The federal RCRA regulatory requirements differ depending upon how much hazardous waste a site generates per month. Most dental practices generate less than 100 kilograms of non-acute hazardous waste per month and less than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste per month. Such facilities are therefore classified as “Very Small Quantity Generators” (VSQGs). VSQGs are not subject to most of the RCRA hazardous waste requirements.

    Many states have additional requirements for the handling of mercury, including waste dental amalgam. Chapter 6 of the TEDD provides additional details on the handling requirements for states that require dentists to control dental mercury dischargers. To facilitate compliance with state and local requirements, several amalgam separator manufacturers offer services that facilitate the transport of waste amalgam to facilities that separate mercury from other metals in dental amalgam and recycle the mercury, keeping it out of the environment. EPA recommends that dental dischargers take advantage of such services. In 2012, ADA posted a directory of amalgam recyclers on its Web site. See DCN DA00468.

    For more information about amalgam separators, see the proposed rule (79 FR 63265; October 22, 2014).

    2. Polishing To Remove Dissolved Mercury From Wastewater

    Mercury from dental amalgam in wastewater is present in both the particulate and dissolved form. The vast majority (>99.6 percent) is particulate (DCN DA00018). An additional process sometimes referred to as “polishing” uses ion exchange to remove dissolved mercury from wastewater. Dissolved mercury has a tendency to bind with other chemicals, resulting in a charged complex. Ion exchange is the process that separates these charged amalgam particles from the wastewater. For ion exchange to be most effective, the incoming wastewater must first be treated to remove solids. Then the wastewater needs to be oxidized (creating a charge on the amalgam particles) in order for the resin or mercury capturing material to capture the dissolved mercury. Therefore, ion exchange will not be effective without first being preceded by a solids collector and an oxidation process. The data available to EPA indicate that total additional mercury reductions with the addition of polishing are typically about 0.5 percent (DCN DA00164). This is not surprising since, as indicated above, dissolved mercury contributes such a small portion to the total amount of mercury in wastewater. In addition to polishing as described above, EPA is aware that vendors are developing amalgam separators with an improved resin for removing dissolved mercury. For additional discussion on polishing, see proposal (79 FR 63266; October 22, 2014).

    3. Wastewater Retention Tanks

    Commenters on the proposed rule identified wastewater retaining tanks as a third technology to reduce mercury discharges from dental offices to POTWs. Where currently used, these systems collect and retain all4 amalgam process wastewater. The wastewater remains in the wastewater retention tank until it is pumped out of the tank and transferred to a privately owned wastewater treatment facility. This eliminates the discharge of amalgam process wastewater and the associated pollutants from a dental office to a POTW.

    4 Dental offices using wastewater retention tanks must ensure that all amalgam process wastewater is collected by the wastewater retention tanks. Any uncollected amalgam process wastewater that is discharged to the POTW is subject to this rule.

    4. Best Management Practices

    In addition to technologies, EPA also identified best management practices currently used in this industry (and included in the ADA BMPs) to reduce dental amalgam discharges. In particular, EPA identified two BMPs to control dental amalgam discharges that would not be captured by an amalgam separator and/or polishing unit. Oxidizing line cleaners can solubilize bound mercury. If oxidizing cleaners are used to clean dental unit water lines, chair side traps, or vacuum lines that lead to an amalgam separator, the line cleaners may solubilize any mercury that the separator has captured, resulting in increased mercury discharges. One BMP ensures the efficiency of amalgam separators by prohibiting use of oxidizing line cleaners including but not limited to, bleach, chlorine, iodine and peroxide, that have a pH lower than 6 or greater than 8.5

    5 Many alternatives use enzymatic or other processes that do not lead to the dissolution of mercury when used to clean chairside traps, and vacuum lines. See DCN DA00215.

    Flushing waste amalgam from chair-side traps, screens, vacuum pump filters, dental tools, or collection devices into drains also presents additional opportunities for mercury to be discharged from the dental office. The second BMP prohibits flushing waste dental amalgam into any drain.

    VI. Final Rule A. Scope and General Applicability

    Consistent with the proposal, dental offices that discharge to POTWs are within the scope of this final pretreatment rule.6 EPA solicited information in the proposal from the public on its preliminary finding that, with few exceptions, dental offices do not discharge wastewater directly to surface waters. EPA did not receive any comments containing data to contradict this finding. Therefore, EPA is not establishing any requirements for direct wastewater discharges from dental offices to surface waters at this time.

    6 The final rule does not apply to dental discharges to septic systems.

    The final rule applies to wastewater discharges to POTWs from offices where the practice of dentistry is performed, including large institutions such as dental schools and clinics; permanent or temporary offices, home offices, and facilities; and including dental offices owned and operated by federal, state, or local governments including military bases. The final rule does not apply to wastewater discharges from dental offices where the practice of dentistry consists exclusively of one or more of the following dental specialties: Oral pathology, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, periodontics, or prosthodontics. As described in the TEDD, these specialty practices are not expected to engage in the practice of amalgam restorations or removals, and are not expected to have any wastewater discharges containing dental amalgam.

    The final rule also does not apply to wastewater discharges to POTWs from mobile units. EPA proposed to apply the standards to mobile units (typically a specialized mobile self- contained van, trailer, or equipment from which dentists provide services at multiple locations), soliciting comments and data pertaining to them (79 FR 63261; October 22, 2014). However, EPA is not establishing requirements for mobile units at this time because it has insufficient data to do so. EPA does not have, nor did commenters provide, data on the number, size, operation, or financial characteristics of mobile units. EPA also has minimal information on wastewater discharges from mobile units, and/or practices employed to minimize dental amalgam in such discharges. Therefore, any further evaluation of requirements for mobile units is not possible at this time, and the final rule requirements do not apply to mobile units.

    B. Existing Source (PSES) Option Selection

    After considering all of the relevant factors and dental amalgam management approaches discussed in this preamble and TEDD, as well as public comments, EPA decided to establish PSES based on proper operation and maintenance of one or more ISO 11143 7 compliant amalgam separators and two BMPs—a prohibition on the discharge of waste (or “scrap”) amalgam to POTWs and a prohibition on the use of line cleaners that are oxidizing or acidic and that have a pH higher than 8 or lower than 6. EPA finds that the technology basis is “available” as that term is used in the CWA because it is readily available and feasible for all dental offices subject to this rule. Data in the record demonstrate that the technology basis is extremely effective in reducing pollutant discharges in dental wastewater to POTWs as the median efficacy of ISO compliant amalgam separators on the market in the U.S. is 99.3 percent. Moreover, ADA recommends that dentists use the technology on which this rule is based (ISO compliant amalgam separators and BMPs). Further, as described in Section III, EPA estimates that approximately 40 percent of dental offices potentially subject to this rule currently use amalgam separators on a voluntary basis or are in states or localities with laws requiring the use of amalgam separators. Many dentists have used amalgam separators and BMPs for at least a decade. For those dental offices that have not yet installed an amalgam separator, EPA estimates this is a low-cost technology with an approximate average annual cost of $800 8 per office. EPA's economic analysis shows that this rule is economically achievable (see Section IX). Finally, EPA also examined the incremental non-water-quality environmental impacts of the final pretreatment standards and found them to be acceptable. See Section XII.

    7 ISO 11143 Standard as incorporated and updated by ANSI Standard 108 (ANSI 108/ISO 11143 Standard).

    8 This estimate is based on the average annualized cost for dental offices that do not currently have an amalgam separator. See DCN DA00458.

    EPA did not establish PSES based on technologies that remove dissolved mercury such as polishing. EPA is not aware of any state or local regulations that require ion exchange or that require removal of dissolved mercury. Commenters raised operational concerns with ion exchange citing a pilot study for the department of Navy. EPA also lacks adequate performance data to assess the efficacy of polishing for nationwide use. While even very small amounts of mercury have environmental effects, EPA lacks sufficient data to conclude that there is a significant difference in the performance between traditional amalgam separators and polishing. Moreover, current information suggests that polishing is not available for nationwide use because the typical dental office may not have adequate space to install the treatment train needed for effective polishing and because there are few polishing systems on the market today in comparison to traditional amalgam separators. Lastly, EPA estimates that the capital costs of the polishing system, as a stand-alone system, are approximately four times that of the amalgam separator even though the costs for chemical use, regenerating the resin, filter replacement, and other operational costs were not reported (DCN DA00122). These factors led EPA to find that polishing is not “available” as that term is used in the CWA.

    EPA also did not establish PSES based on wastewater retention tanks. Capital costs for wastewater retention tanks are approximately twice that of the amalgam separator (DCN DA00461). EPA does not have information on the costs incurred by the dental office to send the collected wastewater off-site to a privately owned treatment facility (may also be referred to as a centralized waste treatment facility or CWT). Furthermore, wastewater retention tanks require space, and EPA determined that the typical dental office may not have adequate space to install the tanks. In addition, EPA is only aware of one vendor currently offering this technology and service combination (vendor transfers the collected wastewater to a privately owned treatment facility), and the vendor's service area is limited to a few states. Therefore, EPA did not find this technology to be available to the industry as a whole.

    C. New Source (PSNS) Option Selection

    After considering all of the relevant factors and technology options discussed in this preamble and in the TEDD, as well as public comments, EPA decided to establish PSNS based on the same technologies identified above as PSES. As previously noted, under section 307(c) of the CWA, new sources of pollutants into POTWs must comply with standards that reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of the best available demonstrated control technologies. Congress envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most efficient processes and treatment systems into the facility design. The technologies used to control pollutants at existing offices, amalgam separators and BMPs, are fully available to new offices. In addition, data from EPA's record show that the incremental cost of an amalgam separator compared to the cost of opening a new dental office is negligible; therefore, EPA determined that the final PSNS present no barrier to entry (see Section IX below). Similarly, because EPA projects that the incremental non-water quality environmental impacts associated with controls for new sources would not exceed those for existing sources, EPA concludes the non-water quality environmental impacts are acceptable. Therefore, this final rule establishes PSNS that are the same as those for PSES.

    EPA rejected other technologies as the basis for PSNS for the same reasons the Agency rejected other technology bases for PSES.

    D. Requirements 1. Performance Standard

    EPA finalized the performance standards based on the same technology identified in the proposed rule, amalgam separators.

    EPA proposed a standard that would require dental dischargers to remove a specified percentage of total mercury from amalgam process wastewater and to follow the BMPs. Recognizing the impracticality of collecting and analyzing wastewater samples to demonstrate compliance with the standard for this industry, EPA included a provision by which dental offices could demonstrate compliance by certifying they were following the required BMPs and using an amalgam separator that achieved the specified percentage when tested for conformance with the ISO standard. EPA received comments regarding the proposed requirement. Commenters questioned the specified percent reduction, and raised concerns that the proposed standard could require dental offices to measure the percent removal being achieved by their amalgam separator, which was not the Agency's intent. In response to these comments, the final rule specifies a performance standard—BMPs and the use of an amalgam separator(s) compliant with the ISO standard rather than specifying a numerical reduction requirement. The final rule also includes a provision such that the performance standard can be met with the use of an amalgam removing technology other than an amalgam separator (equivalent device). EPA included this provision to incorporate future technologies that achieve comparable removals of pollutants from dental discharges as amalgam separators but that may not fall under the amalgam separator classification. Because the rule does not include a numerical limit, the performance standards also specify certain operation and maintenance requirements for the amalgam separator or comparable device to ensure they are operated optimally.

    The final rule allows dental offices to continue to operate existing amalgam separators for their lifetime or ten years (whichever comes first), as long as the dental discharger complies with the other rule requirements including the specified BMPs, operation and maintenance, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Once the separator needs to be replaced or the ten-year period has ended, dental offices will need to replace the amalgam separator with one that meets the requirements of the final rule. EPA does not want to penalize existing dental offices or institutional dental offices that have already installed amalgam separators voluntarily or to comply with state or local requirements. EPA recognizes that these offices may currently have amalgam separators in place that do not meet the ANSI ADA specification or the criteria of the ISO 11143 2008 standard. EPA did not want to establish a rule that would require dental offices with existing separators that still have a remaining useful life to be retrofitted with new separators, both because of the additional costs incurred by dental offices that adopted technology to reduce mercury discharges ahead of EPA's requirements and because of the additional solid waste that would be generated by disposal of the existing separators.

    In addition to installing one or more amalgam separators compliant with the ISO 11143 standard (or its equivalent) and implementing the required BMPs, the pretreatment standards specify certain operating and maintenance requirements for the amalgam separator. For example, the final rule requires a documented amalgam separator inspection to ensure the separator is performing properly. As explained in Section V, malfunctioning separators or separators that have reached their capacity are ineffective. Therefore, in order to ensure that mercury is not discharged from the facility, it is important that dentists know the operational status of their amalgam separator (see 40 CFR 441.40(c)). As such, the final rule requires the separator to be inspected per the manufacturer's instructions. In addition, as explained in Section V, the ISO standard specifies non-sedimentation separators must have a visual or auditory warning indicator when the separator is nearly full or operating in by-pass mode. While not required for sedimentation amalgam separators, some manufacturers of sedimentation amalgam separators include visual or auditory warning indicators. Because warning indicators make it easy to detect when the separator is not operating optimally, EPA encourages dental offices to select an amalgam separator with a warning indicator when installing a new amalgam separator.

    EPA is aware that some amalgam separator vendors (in addition to providing the needed equipment) or service providers offer service contracts to maintain the system. These vendors also typically provide waste management services for the collected solids. Some vendors also provide the necessary documentation and reports required by existing state and local programs. EPA encourages but does not require dental offices to consider such services, as they may aid compliance with the rule.

    2. Applicability to Dental Offices That Do Not Place or Remove Dental Amalgam

    In the final rule, dental dischargers that do not place dental amalgam, and do not remove dental amalgam except in limited emergency or unplanned, unanticipated circumstances are exempt from any further requirements as long as they certify such in their One-time Compliance Report to their Control Authority. In this way, if, over time, the use of dental amalgam is phased out as a restorative material, the requirements of this rule will no longer apply. By limited circumstances, EPA means, dental offices that remove amalgam at a frequency less than five percent of its procedures. As described below, based on the record, on average, this percent approximates to 9 removals per office per year (DCN DA00467).

    Dental amalgam traditionally has been used as a restorative material for cavities because the malleability of newly mixed amalgam makes it easy to place into cavities and because of its durability over time. While still used in many dental offices in the U.S., some dental offices have elected not to use dental amalgam and instead use only non-mercury based filling materials, such as composite resins and glass ionomer cements (DCN DA00495). As explained in Section IV, removed restorations are the largest contributor of mercury in dental discharges. Some dental offices have also elected not to remove amalgam restorations.

    EPA recognizes some dental offices only remove dental amalgam extremely infrequently, where there is an unplanned, unanticipated procedure. At the same time, for accepting new patients during the normal course of business, EPA would expect offices to inquire as to whether the patient has mercury fillings and not accept patients that have such fillings unless they install a separator or equivalent treatment in accordance with this rule. EPA proposed that dental offices that certify that they do not place or remove amalgam except in limited emergency circumstances would be exempt from any further requirements of the rule. EPA is clarifying in the final rule that the limited circumstances provision applies to the removal, but not to the placement of dental amalgam. A dental office that stocks amalgam capsules clearly intends to place amalgam, and does not represent the type of limited circumstance this provision is intended to address. Commenters largely supported this approach, and most commenters suggested EPA define limited emergency circumstances. The frequency recommended by these commenters ranged from once a quarter to 96 times a year (DCN DA00467).

    EPA is including the limited circumstances provision in the final rule to allow a dental office that does not reasonably expect to place or remove dental amalgam to provide immediate treatment, such as where unplanned, unanticipated removal of the amalgam is necessary at that facility at that time, in the professional judgment of the dentist. EPA's intent is to exclude dental offices from the rule's requirements, other than a one-time report, for unplanned removals. In EPA's view, dental offices that remove amalgam at a frequency more often than five percent of its procedures are not likely engaging in only limited, unplanned removals. EPA estimates that on average, a single chair dental office would remove amalgam 183 times per year (DCN DA00467). An amalgam removal rate that represents less than five percent of this frequency consists of approximately nine removals per year, on average, respectively. However, because EPA does not have, nor did commenters provide, data on the frequency of such unplanned and unanticipated instances nationwide, the final rule does not include a specific definition of limited circumstances. Rather, EPA expects a dental office to carefully consider its operation in light of the information provided above and only certify accordingly to their Control Authority if it meets the situation EPA described.

    3. Dental Discharger Reporting and On-Site Paperwork Compliance Requirements

    Dental dischargers subject to this rule must comply with a one-time reporting requirement specified in the final rule in lieu of the otherwise applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 403. Submission of reports as specified in this rule satisfies the reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 403 and 441. For dental offices that do not place or remove dental amalgam except in limited circumstances, dental offices must submit a One-Time Compliance Report that includes information on the facility and a certification statement that the dental discharger does not place dental amalgam and does not remove amalgam except in limited circumstances. For dental offices that place or remove dental amalgam, the One-Time Compliance Report must include information on the dental facility and its operations and a certification that the dental discharger meets the requirements of the applicable performance standard. Dentists that utilize a third party to maintain their separator must report that information in their One-Time Compliance Report. Dentists that do not utilize a third party to maintain the amalgam separator(s) must provide a description of the practices employed by the office to ensure proper operation and maintenance. EPA suggests dental offices consider use of signs displayed prominently in the office or electronic calendar alerts to remind staff of dates to perform and document monthly inspections, cartridge replacement, etc.

    If a dental practice changes ownership (which is a change in the responsible party, as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l)), the new owner must submit a One-Time Compliance Report that contains the required information.

    The One-Time Compliance Report must be signed by (1) a responsible corporate officer if the dental office is a corporation; (2) a general partner or proprietor if the dental office is a partnership or sole proprietorship; or (3) a duly authorized representative of the responsible corporate officer, or general partner or proprietor. This does not preclude a third party from submitting the report on behalf of a dental office as long as the submission also includes a proper signature as described above.

    The final rule does not require electronic reporting nor does it prevent electronic reporting. EPA received several comments requesting that EPA develop an electronic compliance reporting system as a part of this final rule. These commenters generally advocated for electronic reporting due to the size of the industry and the proposed annual reporting requirement. During development of the final rule, EPA considered several variations of requirements for dental dischargers to report electronically (which would have necessitated an electronic system). Most commonly, electronic systems are preferable when reports must be submitted on a periodic basis. EPA ultimately decided not to specify electronic reporting in the final rule after it determined the final rule would only require a one-time compliance report from each affected dental discharger.

    Still, EPA recognizes that some Control Authorities may prefer to receive the one-time reports electronically or to provide affected dental dischargers with the option to report electronically. EPA also recognizes that electronic submittal of required reports could increase the usefulness of the reports, is in keeping with current trends in compliance reporting, and could result in less burden on the regulated community and the Control Authorities. EPA may develop and make available, via its E-Enterprise portal, an electronic reporting system that Control Authorities could use to facilitate the receipt of reports from dental dischargers, if they choose to do so. At some future date, EPA could decide to revise this final rule to require electronic reporting. If it chose to do so, EPA would first propose the revisions and provide an opportunity for public review and comment.

    Finally, the final rule requires dental offices to document certain operation and maintenance requirements and maintain all records of compliance, as described in the regulation, and to make them available for inspection.

    4. Control Authority Oversight/Reporting

    EPA proposed to amend selected parts of the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403) in order to simplify oversight requirements for the approximately 117,000 dental offices subject to the proposed rule. Specifically, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR part 403 to create a new classification of categorical industrial users specifically tailored to pretreatment standards for dental offices, dental industrial user (DIU). EPA proposed that as long as a dental office complied with the requirements for DIUs, that it would not be considered an SIU. Among other things, this would have reduced the General Pretreatment Regulation oversight requirements for Control Authorities, such as the requirement to issue a control mechanism and annual inspection and sampling.

    EPA received numerous comments related to the proposed change, particularly from the Control Authorities. These commenters largely supported the reduced oversight requirements in the proposal, but encouraged EPA to reduce them further so that dental offices would never be SIUs, primarily due to concerns over the associated burden given the large number of dental offices potentially subject to the rule. In addition, Control Authorities raised concerns that they would have to update state and local laws to take advantage of the proposed changes to part 403 that would reduce the oversight requirements. They also raised concerns about additional reporting requirements for the Control Authorities typically associated with CIUs, such as identifying CIUs in their annual pretreatment report to the Approval Authority.

    In response, EPA did not revise the General Pretreatment Standards to create the proposed DIU category and associated requirements. Rather, this rule establishes for the purposes of part 441, that dental dischargers are not SIUs or CIUs as defined in 40 CFR part 403 unless designated as such by the Control Authority. This regulatory structure achieves the same goal as the proposed revisions to the General Pretreatment Standards—simplification of oversight requirements—without creating a need for updates to state and local laws. By establishing that dental dischargers are not SIUs or CIUs in the final rule, EPA eliminates the application of specific oversight and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 403 such as permitting and annual inspections of dental dischargers for SIUs and CIUs unless the Control Authority chooses to apply these requirements to dental offices. This means that Control Authorities have discretion under the final rule to determine the appropriate manner of oversight, compliance assistance, and enforcement.9 Further, the final rule reduced reporting for dental offices (and associated oversight requirements by Control Authorities) in comparison to reporting requirements for other industries subject to categorical pretreatment standards, as it requires only a One-Time Compliance Report be submitted to the Control Authority. The One-Time Compliance Report requirements specific to dental dischargers are included in this rule rather than in the General Pretreatment regulations so that they may be implemented directly. In summary, for this final rule, the Control Authorities must receive the One-Time Compliance Reports from dental dischargers and retain that notification according to the standard records retention protocol contained in § 403.12(o).

    9 Nothing stated in this section shall be construed so as to limit EPA's inspection and enforcement authority.

    Where EPA is the Control Authority, EPA expects to explore compliance monitoring approaches that support sector-wide compliance evaluations, to the extent practicable. States and POTWs that are the Control Authority may elect to use the same approach but are not required to do so. One approach may be periodic review and evaluation of nationwide data on releases of dental amalgam metals (e.g., mercury), relying on Discharge Monitoring Reports from POTWs, Annual Biosolids Reports from POTWs, emissions data from sludge incinerators, and supplemental data submitted to EPA under the Toxic Releases Inventory program. EPA may utilize an approach to compliance inspections that focuses on a statistically valid sample of the regulated community. EPA may then use the inspection findings from such an approach to identify common areas of noncompliance, which would inform decisions about needed outreach, compliance assistance, and training materials. EPA will work with state and local Control Authorities, the ADA and other partners to tailor oversight and outreach to the issues where such oversight and outreach is most likely to achieve compliance across the dental sector.

    5. Interaction With Existing State and Local Mandatory Dental Amalgam Reduction Programs

    The final rule applies to both dental offices that are subject to existing mandatory state or local dental amalgam reduction programs and those that are not. Some proposal commenters, many of whom are in states and localities with existing programs, questioned the application of this rule to dentists already subject to state and local programs noting the duplicative requirements. While EPA found that many of the existing programs contained at least one attribute of this final rule (e.g. separators, reporting, BMPs, operation and maintenance), the majority did not contain all of the attributes. Generally, the additional requirements (and associated costs) of this final rule are incremental over existing mandatory state or local dental amalgam reduction requirements. For example, a dentist located in a state or locality that does not require one or both of the BMPs specified in this rule must implement both BMPs. While the requirements of this rule are incremental to existing state and local regulatory requirements, EPA finds they are necessary to achieve the intended environmental objectives of the rule. Applying categorical pretreatment standards to pollutant discharges from dental offices irrespective of existing discharge requirements is consistent with the general approach to pretreatment standards under the CWA in that it establishes uniform requirements that form the floor of performance for all dischargers in a regulated category.

    In addition, requiring all dental offices to meet the same requirements, regardless of the applicability of other state or local requirements, avoids substantial implementation challenges and potential confusion associated with alternative approaches. EPA considered several approaches for accommodating dentists in states and localities with existing and local requirements. For example, EPA considered exempting dentists subject to equivalent state and local requirements from the scope of this rule. EPA rejected this approach, in part, due to the complexities and potential confusion associated with evaluating and communicating the equivalency of state and local requirements to this rule, particularly as they may change over time.

    The rule establishes clear requirements for all parties and compliance with the final rule is simple and straightforward for dental offices and the regulating authorities. It requires dental offices to install and operate a separator, to implement two BMPs, and to submit a One-time Compliance Report to the Control Authority. Thereafter, the dental office will be required to conduct ongoing operation and maintenance and maintain associated records. These activities can be facilitated by third parties such as dental office suppliers and amalgam separator manufacturers. EPA does not expect the federal requirements to conflict with existing state or local mandatory amalgam reduction requirements. Rather, EPA concludes this final rule imposes only incremental additional requirements (e.g., one-time compliance report) to their Control Authority, if any, on dental offices already subject to state or local amalgam reduction requirements. For Control Authorities, because EPA significantly reduced the oversight requirements associated with this rule, the incremental costs and burden to apply the final rule's requirements to dental facilities subject to some existing mandatory dental amalgam reduction requirements are minimal. The only incremental requirement associated with this rule is for the Control Authority to receive, review, and retain a One-time Compliance Report from dentists subject to this rule.

    6. Variances

    The provision of this rule establishing that dental dischargers are not SIUs or CIUs unless designated as such by the Control Authority does not change the otherwise applicable variances and modifications provided by the statute. For example, EPA can develop pretreatment standards different from the otherwise applicable requirements for an individual existing discharger subject to categorical pretreatment standards if it is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered in establishing the standards applicable to the individual discharger. Such a modification is known as a “fundamentally different factors” (FDF) variance. See 40 CFR 403.13 and the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 63278-63279, October 22, 2014). FDF variances traditionally have been available to industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment standards. Whether or not a dental discharger is an SIU or CIU, it is subject to categorical pretreatment standards and therefore eligible to apply for an FDF variance.

    E. Pollutants of Concern and Pass Through Analysis

    CWA section 301(b) directs EPA to eliminate the discharge of all pollutants where it is technologically available and economically achievable (after a consideration of the factors specified in section 304(b) of the Act). The first step in such an analysis is typically to identify Pollutants of Concern (POCs)—or the pollutants potentially regulated in the effluent guideline. For this rule, EPA identifies the primary metals in dental amalgam as pollutants of concern: Mercury, silver, tin, copper, and zinc.

    Generally, in determining whether pollutants pass through a POTW when considering the establishment of categorical pretreatment standards, EPA compares the median percentage of the pollutant removed by POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the median percentage of the pollutant removed by facilities meeting BAT effluent limitations. EPA deems a pollutant to pass through a POTW when the percentage removed by POTWs is less than the percentage removed by direct dischargers complying with BPT/BAT effluent limitations. In this manner, EPA can ensure that the combined treatment at indirect discharging facilities and POTWs is at least equivalent to that obtained through treatment by a direct discharger, while also considering the treatment capability of the POTW. In the case of this final rulemaking, where EPA is only developing pretreatment standards, EPA compares the POTW removals with removals achieved by indirect dischargers using the technology that otherwise satisfies the BAT factors.

    Historically, EPA's primary source of POTW removal data is its 1982 “Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works” (also known as the 50 POTW Study). This well documented study presents data on the performance of 50 POTWs achieving secondary treatment in removing toxic pollutants. As part of the development of ELGs for the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Industry promulgated in December 2000, EPA developed and documented a methodology, including data editing criteria, to calculate POTW percent removals for various toxic pollutants from the data collected in the study. EPA provided the opportunity for public comment on the percent removal methodology and the resulting percent removals in the CWT proposal. EPA similarly used and presented this methodology and data in subsequent ELG proposals and final rules. Using its long-standing approach, for this final rule, EPA determined the median percent removal by POTWs achieving secondary treatment is 90.2 percent for total mercury, and 42.6 percent to 88.3 percent for the other pollutants of concern.

    As described above, the 50 POTW Study measured pollutant reductions on the basis of total metals. Total metals include particulate (suspended) and dissolved (soluble) forms of the metal. As discussed above, while mercury is present in dental amalgam in both the particulate and dissolved form, the vast majority (>99.6 percent) is particulate. While EPA does not have information on the distribution of the other metals, EPA reasonably assumes the same distribution for the other metals. Because secondary treatment technologies are not designed to remove dissolved metals, EPA assumes dissolved metals are not removed by POTWs and that the percent reductions for POTWs represent particulate reductions.

    To determine the median percent removal of the pollutants of concern by amalgam separators, EPA collected information on the efficacy of existing separators. EPA excluded those separators that did not meet the 2008 ISO standards. At proposal, EPA determined the median percent removal of total mercury to be 99.0 percent, which is the reported removal when testing each of the amalgam separators marketed in the U.S. as conforming to the ISO standard (DCN DA00233). Commenters noted that existing data on the effectiveness of separators is measured as a percent reduction in mass, reflecting the dental amalgam particulates (rather than total mercury) collected by the device. EPA agrees the ISO standard evaluates particulates from dental amalgam rather than total mercury, and has adjusted its terminology accordingly. Based on updated information in the record, EPA determined the median percent removal of particulates by amalgam separators that meet the 2008 ISO standards is 99.3 percent. As such, because the median percent removal of amalgam separators exceeds the median percent removal of well-operated POTWs employing secondary treatment for mercury and the other POCs, EPA determines that mercury and the other POCs pass through.

    In addition to comments relating to dissolved mercury, EPA received other comments and data pertaining to the proposed median percent removal of ISO compliant amalgam separators. Some commenters supported the percentage identified in the proposal, noting that certain states require the same level of performance, or identifying separators documented as achieving or exceeding that removal efficiency. Other commenters questioned EPA's use of the data collected when laboratories certify amalgam separators to meet the ISO standard. More specifically, they asserted that the 2008 ISO standard requires the removal efficiency of the amalgam separator to be at least 95 percent on a mass fraction basis and as such, the ISO standard is not a validated test for measuring higher efficiencies. These commenters offered no data to demonstrate that the reported removals in excess of 95 percent were inaccurate, nor did commenters provide other efficiency data for amalgam separators. As it represents the best data available for the final rule, EPA appropriately used the data as reported to estimate the efficacy of amalgam separators for these purposes. EPA notes that even if commenters correctly characterized the minimum percent removal efficiency of amalgam separators meeting the 2008 ISO standard as 95 percent, this is a higher removal rate than the median percent removal by POTWs for all POCs. Therefore, while EPA based its analysis in the final rule on the percent removals as reported, under either case, EPA determines that mercury and the other POCs pass through.

    Other commenters stated the 50 POTW Study data were old, and that current POTW removals are higher than 90 percent. Some provided case studies, many of which reflected POTWs with advanced treatment capabilities rather than secondary treatment. In particular, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) submitted data from a nationwide voluntary survey of its members regarding mercury reductions at POTWs. Based on its analysis of the data collected in this survey, NACWA calculated a three-year average removal efficiency of 94 percent.10 EPA notes that even if EPA were to accept these data and analyses as presented by NACWA without further review, it would confirm EPA's conclusion that pass through of POCs occurs because this percentage is less than the median efficiency of 2008 ISO compliant amalgam separators of 99.3 percent.

    10 EPA notes that in conducting its pass through analysis, EPA calculates and compares median percent removals rather than average percent removals.

    EPA, however, gave full consideration to the NACWA survey and subjected the mercury influent and effluent data from the 41 POTWs from that survey to similar review and data editing criteria as influent and effluent data collected for the 50 POTW Study. In this way, EPA attempted to give the NACWA data full and equal consideration as the historical data from the 50 POTW Study. EPA created a database of the raw data in order to conduct its analysis. (DCN DA00463). When EPA calculated the median percent removal of the non-edited raw data as submitted by NACWA, the median plant performance was 93.8 percent, with a range of 57.2 percent to 99.1 percent. In reviewing the data used in that calculation, EPA identified numerous data points that would not satisfy the data editing criteria applied in the 50 POTW Study, including data points representing combined data rather than raw data, order of magnitude outlier concentrations, and incorrectly reported units of measure. Other discrepancies between data and analyses from the 50 POTW Study and NACWA survey include upward bias of using data from voluntary respondents, representing non-detect influent concentrations as zero,11 inclusion of several POTWs using BNR (biological nutrient removal) and other advanced treatment expected to perform better than secondary treatment, overrepresentation of areas with existing dental amalgam reduction programs, and underrepresentation of certain geographical areas. Sensitivity analyses around these data are found in the record. (DCN DA00464).

    11 EPA generally handles non-detect values in the reported data by replacing them with a value of one-half of the detection level for the observation that yielded the non-detect. This methodology is standard procedure for the ELG program as well as Clean Water Act assessment and permitting, Safe Drinking Water Act monitoring, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Superfund programs; and this approach is consistent with previous ELGs.

    Consequently, for all of the reasons identified above, for this final rule, EPA finds that data from the 50 POTW Study continues to represent the best data available to determine the percent removed nationwide by well operated POTWs employing secondary treatment. Based on the information in its record including full consideration of comments, EPA appropriately concludes that the median percent removal of amalgam separators is higher than the median percent removal of POTWs for mercury and the other pollutants of concern. As such, EPA concludes mercury and the other POCs pass through.

    VII. Technology Costs

    This section summarizes EPA's approach for estimating incremental compliance costs to implement changes associated with this rule, while the TEDD provides detailed information on the methodology. The costing methodology for the final rule is the same as that described in the proposal (79 FR 63269; October 22, 2014); however, EPA updated some of the specific data elements. EPA estimated compliance costs using data collected through EPA's Health Services Industry Detailed Study (August 2008) [EPA-821-R-08-014], a review of the literature, information supplied by vendors, and data submitted with comments on the proposed rule. In estimating the total cost of the regulatory options, EPA estimated costs for the following components: Capital costs and other one-time costs; installation costs; annual operation and maintenance costs; and recordkeeping and reporting costs. EPA incorporated information received in comments pertaining to specific elements of the cost analysis, resulting in an increase in the initial installation cost and a minor increase in the average costs of dental amalgam separators that meet the 2008 ISO standard. In addition, EPA adjusted the reporting and recordkeeping costs to reflect the final rule requirements.

    The cost estimates reflect the incremental costs attributed only to this final rule. For example, offices required by a state or local program to have an amalgam separator compliant with the 2008 ISO 11143 standard will not incur costs to retrofit a separator as a result of this rule. Others may certify that they do not place or remove amalgam. Such offices may still have costs under this final rule such as those associated with the one-time reporting requirement to certify that they do not place or remove amalgam. EPA's cost methodology assumes dental offices would use the required BMPs in combination with 2008 ISO 11143 amalgam separators to comply with the rule. All final cost estimates are expressed in terms of 2016 dollars.

    EPA used a model office approach to calculate costs of this rule. Under this approach, EPA developed a series of model dental offices that exhibited the typical characteristics of the regulated dental offices, and then calculated costs for each type of model office. EPA then determined how many of each model office accurately represented the full universe of affected offices. While this part of the methodology remains unchanged from the proposal, EPA updated the number of offices in each model to reflect current existing state and local programs and, in the case of very large offices, to reflect new data obtained in public comments on the number of clinics and schools subject to this rule.

    A. Costs for Model Dental Offices

    EPA used the model approach to estimate costs for offices that place or remove amalgam for this final rule. EPA developed compliance costs for seven models, where each model is based on the number of chairs in an office. The ranges for each model are as follows: 1 to 2 chairs, 3 chairs, 4 chairs, 5 chairs, 6 chairs, 7-14 chairs (average of 10 chairs), and 15 chairs. EPA developed the 15 chairs model specifically to represent large institutional offices. This is discussed separately below in Section VII.B. EPA developed two sets of costs for each model: One for offices that do not use an amalgam separator and one for offices that do use an amalgam separator.

    For those offices that currently do not use an amalgam separator, EPA estimated one-time and annual costs. One-time costs include purchase of the separator and installation, and preparation of the One-time Compliance Report. Annual costs, for those offices that do use an amalgam separator, include visual inspection, replacement of the amalgam-retaining unit (e.g., cartridge or filter), separator maintenance and repair, recycling (preparation and services), and recordkeeping. Recordkeeping costs include documentation of inspection, separator maintenance and repair, and recycling (preparation and services). EPA also estimated periodic recordkeeping costs associated with repairs and One-Time Compliance Reports for new offices, which are included in the total of recordkeeping costs. Annual costs also include a cost offset, reflecting a cost savings as a result of changes that occur in the dental office due to the final rule requirements. More specifically, EPA received data in comments that an amalgam separator would protect the vacuum system filter and impeller blade from small particles, resulting in less frequent replacement and servicing of these elements when an amalgam separator has been installed. In the final rule cost analysis, EPA accordingly reduced the overall operation and maintenance costs for those dental offices that do not already have an amalgam separator. This cost offset reflects the reduced cost to dental offices of servicing the vacuum system filter and impeller blade. A summary of costs for dental offices that do not currently use amalgam separators may be found in Tables VII-1 and VII-2, see the TEDD for more details.

    12 EPA assumed the separator can be sized for 3, 4, or 5 chairs, but has kept these three model office sizes distinct because the economic analysis evaluates different revenues for each of these sized offices.

    13 EPA assumed the separator can be sized for 3, 4, or 5 chairs, but has kept these three model office sizes distinct because the economic analysis evaluates different revenues for each of these sized offices.

    Table VII-1—Summary of One Time Model Facility Costs ($2016) for Dental Offices That Do Not Currently Use Amalgam Separators Cost element Number of chairs in the model dental office 1 or 2 3, 4, or 5 12 6 7 to 14 15 Separator Purchase $437 $697 $1,058 $1,291 $2,424 Installation 235 276 276 358 942 One-Time Compliance Report 23 23 23 23 23 Table VII-2—Summary of Annual Model Facility Costs ($2016) for Dental Offices That Do Not Currently Use Amalgam Separators Cost element Number of chairs in the model dental office 1 or 2 3, 4, or 5 13 6 7 to 14 15 Replacement Parts $275 $386 $559 $732 $1,078 Separator Maintenance 115 115 115 115 115 Maintenance Cost Off-set −75 −75 −75 −75 −75 Recycling 91 91 91 91 91 Visual Inspection 18 18 18 18 18 Recordkeeping 62 62 62 62 62

    For those offices that already have an amalgam separator, EPA calculated costs for certain incremental annual costs associated with the amalgam separator required for this rule. Because these offices have separators, EPA only included a one-time cost for a One-Time Compliance Report ($23/office). Annual costs for such offices include visual inspection, replacement of the amalgam-retaining unit, separator maintenance and repair, recycling (preparation and services), and recordkeeping. Because these offices have amalgam separators in place, they are already incurring the majority of these costs irrespective of this final rule. As such, for those components (e.g., replacement of the cartridge and operation and maintenance), EPA calculated their incremental costs as a portion (percentage) of annual costs for dental offices without technology in place. Recordkeeping costs include documentation of inspection, separator maintenance and repair, and recycling (preparation and services). EPA also estimated periodic recordkeeping costs associated with repairs and One-Time Compliance Reports for new offices, which are included in the total of recordkeeping costs. EPA did not include the cost offset in this model, as described above. A summary of these annual costs may be found in Table VII-3, see the TEDD for more details.

    Table VII-3—Summary of Annual Model Facility Costs ($2016) for Dental Offices That Currently Use Amalgam Separators Cost element Number of chairs in the model dental office 1 or 2 3, 4, or 5 14 6 7 to 14 15 Replacement Parts $138 $193 $280 $366 $539 Separator Maintenance 58 58 58 58 58 Recycling 45 45 45 45 45 Inspection 18 18 18 18 18 Recordkeeping 62 62 62 62 62

    In assessing the long term costs of rule compliance for these model offices (those with and without existing separators), EPA assumed that amalgam separators would have a service life of 10 years, at which time the amalgam separators would need to be replaced (DCN DA00163). Furthermore, the cost model assumes all dental amalgam separators installed prior to this rule would need to be replaced within 10 years of the effective date of this rule. Therefore, for the purposes of estimating compliance costs, EPA assumed that all offices subject to this rule would incur the cost of installing a new amalgam separator 10 years after the effective date of this rule. However, because various modifications needed by the office for initial amalgam separator installation would have already been completed, EPA has projected the installation costs for amalgam separators would be one-half of the cost of the original installation. EPA assumed that all dental offices would continue to incur recurring expenses such as O&M beyond year 10 in the same way as described for the initial installation. To the extent dental offices either close or certify they no longer remove or place amalgam, the costs are likely overstated.

    14 EPA assumed the separator can be sized for 3, 4, or 5 chairs, but has kept these three model office sizes distinct because the economic analysis evaluates different revenues for each of these sized offices.

    EPA projects that there will be no incremental costs associated with the required BMPs because (1) costs for non-oxidizing, pH neutral line cleaners are roughly equivalent to other line cleaners; and (2) dental offices will not incur additional costs by changing the location for flushing waste amalgam.

    B. Costs for Larger Institutional Dental Offices

    Institutional dental offices (e.g., military clinics or dental schools) have a larger number of chairs than the typical dental office. For these institutional dental offices, EPA developed a costing methodology based on the methodology for offices described above. For purposes of costs, consistent with the proposal, EPA assumed the average institutional office has 15 chairs.15 As shown in Chapter 9 of the TEDD, EPA has cost information for five amalgam separators that have a maximum design ranging from 17-22 chairs. EPA also has costs for a unit that can be custom sized for chair sizes of 16 or greater. EPA used the information for these six separators to estimate costs for institutional facilities. See DCN DA00454. These costs are likely overstated as they do not reflect opportunities the largest offices may have to share costs,16 and they do not assume any economies of scale. In addition, it is possible that the largest offices have multiple plumbing lines, allowing the installation of dental amalgam separators (or equivalent devices) only for those chairs used for placing or removing amalgam. See the proposed preamble and the TEDD for additional details on the costing methodology for institutional offices.

    15 This represents the number of chairs that can be used for the placement and/or removal of amalgam at a particular location. EPA received comments for institutional facilities indicating they had 7, 15, or 25 chairs. EPA selected the median of these values for purposes of this analysis.

    16 For example, multiple offices located in a single building or complex may be able to share plumbing, vacuum systems, and may be able to install a larger separator rather than each office having its own separator.

    VIII. Pollutant Loads

    As was the case for costing, EPA does not have office-specific discharge data for the approximately 117,000 dental offices potentially subject to this rule. Instead, EPA modeled the baseline, pre-rule discharges of mercury based on nationwide estimates of amalgam restorations and removals, and did not calculate the pollutant reductions on a per office basis. Rather, EPA calculated average mercury loadings by dividing the total number of annual procedures by the total number of dentists performing the procedure.17 The technology basis used to estimate the compliance costs of this rule includes 2008 ISO 11143 amalgam separators available on the market today, and certain BMPs. The median performance of these separators is 99.3 percent. EPA assumes all offices have chair-side traps or a combination of chair-side traps and vacuum filters that result in 68 percent and 78 percent collection of dental amalgam, respectively (DCN DA00163). After accounting for mercury reductions achieved through existing chair-side traps and vacuum pump filters, EPA's analysis reduces remaining mercury loads to reflect the combination of chair-side traps, vacuum filters, and amalgam separators. Therefore, EPA assumed a post-rule reduction in mercury loads to POTWs based on a 99.8 percent removal rate. This is the same approach and data that EPA presented in the proposal (79 FR 623275; October 22, 2014).

    17 Because this approach is based on the number of dentists, it includes those dentists both at offices and institutional offices.

    Amalgam is comprised of roughly 49 percent mercury, 35 percent silver, 9 percent tin, 6 percent copper and 1 percent zinc (DCN DA00131). As explained earlier in Section VI, EPA concludes that the technology basis would be equally effective in reducing discharges of silver, tin, copper, and zinc as it is in reducing mercury. EPA therefore applied the same approach to estimating reductions of other metals found in dental amalgam. In other words, EPA assumes chair-side traps and the combination of chair-side traps and vacuum filters will result in 68 percent and 78 percent collection of these metals, respectively. Remaining amalgam metals are further reduced by an amalgam separator, as discussed above.

    A. National Estimate of Annual Pollutant Reductions to POTWs Associated With This Rule 18 1. Mercury

    EPA estimates the approximately 55,000 offices that install separators would obtain 99.3 percent removal of particulate mercury through the use of amalgam separators (median removal efficiency of amalgam separators; see Chapter 7 of the TEDD). This would result in reduction of particulate mercury discharges to POTWs by approximately 5.1 tons. Amalgam separators are not effective in removing dissolved mercury. However, dissolved mercury accounts for much less than 1 percent of the total mercury, so the form of mercury removed from discharges to POTWs is assumed to consist of particulate (solids) only.

    18 EPA's approach is not dynamic, as it does not account for declining use of dental amalgam. See additional discussion in V.B.

    2. Other Metals

    As explained earlier in Section VI, EPA concludes that the technology basis for this final rule would be equally effective in reducing discharges of silver, tin, copper, and zinc as it is in reducing mercury. Accordingly, EPA estimates a reduction of these metal discharges to POTWs of approximately 5.3 tons.

    3. Total Reductions

    EPA estimates this final rule would annually reduce particulate mercury and other metal particulate discharges by a total of 10.3 tons.

    B. National Estimate of Annual Pollutant Reductions to Surface Waters Associated With This Rule

    In order to evaluate final discharges of mercury (and other metals) to waters of the U.S. by the POTW, EPA used its 50 POTW Study to calculate POTW removals of each metal. As explained above, at baseline and prior to implementation of this rule, EPA estimates 5.1 tons of dental mercury particulates are collectively discharged annually to POTWs. Based on the 50 POTW Study, EPA estimates POTWs remove 90.2 percent of dental mercury from the wastewater. Thus, POTWs collectively discharge 1,003 pounds of mercury from dental amalgam to surface waters annually. Under this final rule, 99.8 percent of mercury particulates currently discharged annually to POTWs will be removed prior to the POTW. The POTWs then further remove 90.2 percent of the remaining particulate mercury from the wastewater. This reduces the total amount of dental mercury particulates discharged from POTWs nationwide to surface water to 11 pounds of mercury annually. In other words, discharges of dental mercury to waters of the U.S. from POTWs are expected to be reduced by 992 pounds per year.19 Similarly, EPA's 50 POTW Study data shows 42.6 percent to 88.3 percent of other metals in the wastewater are removed by POTWs. As explained above, EPA estimates 5.3 tons of other metals are also collectively discharged annually from dental offices to POTWs. Thus, POTWs collectively discharge approximately 2,178 pounds of other dental metals to surface waters annually. Following compliance with this rule, the total amount of other dental metal discharges from POTWs nationwide to surface waters will be approximately 24 pounds or a reduction of 2,153. See Chapter 11 of the TEDD for more details.

    19 Dissolved mercury accounts for a portion of surface water discharges, because amalgam separators do not remove dissolved mercury.

    IX. Economic Impact Analysis

    This section summarizes EPA's assessment of the total annual costs and impacts of the final pretreatment standards on the regulated industry.

    A. Social Cost Estimates

    As described earlier in Section VI of this preamble, EPA based the technology standard for the final rule on a widely available technology, amalgam separators, and employment of readily available BMPs. Section VII provides a detailed explanation of how EPA estimated compliance costs for model dental offices. As applicable, EPA annualized the capital costs over a 20-year period at a discount rate of 7 percent and 3 percent 20 and summed these costs with the O&M and reporting/recordkeeping costs to determine an annual compliance cost estimate for each model facility. See the TEDD for more details.

    20 See the TEDD for the reported analyses using both a 7 percent and 3 percent discount rate.

    In order to develop a national estimate of social costs 21 based on these model offices, EPA estimated the number of dental offices represented by each model office. EPA categorized dental offices based on the number of chairs in each office.22 The 2012 Economic Census does not provide information on the distribution of dental offices by the number of chairs in each office. However, two studies, the ADA National Study and a Colorado Study, estimate distribution of dentist offices by number of chairs (DCN DA00141 and DCN DA00149). EPA used these two data sources to correlate the number of chairs per office to the revenue range of dental offices. EPA averaged the correlation of these two studies to estimate the number of dental offices by the number of chairs. The results are reported in table IX-1:

    21 Costs of the rule, from the standpoint of cost to society, include compliance costs and administrative costs to Control Authorities. Social costs would also incorporate any adjustment based on a quantity demand response to a change in price driven by a price change due to cost pass-through to consumers. For this analysis, EPA is not able to demonstrate an observable change in price for dental services, therefore no observable change in amount of visits (quantity demanded). Therefore, EPA makes no adjustment to social costs based on a change in quantity.

    22 Amalgam separators are typically designed based on the number of chairs.

    Table IX-1—Number of Dental Offices by Number of Chairs Number of chairs Number of offices by chair size ADA survey Colorado
  • survey
  • Average
    1-2 chairs 16,606 12,976 14,791 3 chairs 57,841 33,738 31,329 4 chairs 38,928 33,924 5 chairs 35,638 19,032 18,425 6 chairs 7,786 12,802 7+ chairs 23,136 20,762 21,949 Total 133,221 133,221 133,221

    To estimate nationwide social costs, EPA multiplied the estimated total annualized costs of rule compliance for each model office by the estimated number of dental offices represented by that model (i.e. with the indicated number of chairs and with/without existing amalgam separators). In EPA's analysis, for dental offices that do not place or remove amalgam, EPA assigned them costs for a baseline-compliance report. EPA then summed the values for each chair range over the number of chair ranges to yield the total estimated compliance cost. Similarly, EPA calculated costs for institutional offices by multiplying the compliance cost for its model institutional offices (15-chair model) by the number of estimated institutional offices indicated in Section V. Lastly, EPA estimated costs for Control Authorities to administer the final rule. Details of this cost analysis can be found in the TEDD. See Table IX-2 for EPA's estimate of total nationwide annualized social costs for this final rule using a 3 percent discount rate.23

    23 As a point of clarification, social costs equal the sum of compliance costs and administrative costs. Also, EPA used a 3 percent discount rate for the social costs analysis.

    Table IX-2—Total Annualized Social Costs by Number of Chairs [Millions of 2016 dollars] Number of chairs Total annualized costs by chair size 1 Colorado
  • survey
  • ADA survey
    1-2 chairs $4.2 $5.4 3 chairs 13.6 23.3 4 chairs 15.7 5 chairs 7.7 16.4 6 chairs 4.0 7-14 chairs 13.1 14.6 15 chairs 0.3 0.3 Cost to Control Authorities 0.8 0.8 Total Annualized Social Costs 59.4 60.8 1 These costs reflect estimated costs discounted to the year of promulgation. EPA assumed that initial capital outlays and initial incurrence of ongoing compliance expenses would occur in the third year following rule promulgation. EPA assumed that the amalgam separator technology would have a service life of 10 years, and used a 20-year analysis period to allow for one-time replacement of capital equipment 10 years following the initial installation. A 3 percent discount rate was used for the analysis reported in this table; see the TEDD for the analysis reported with a 7% discount rate.
    B. Economic Impact

    EPA devised a set of tests for analyzing economic achievability. As is often EPA's practice, the Agency conducted a cost-to-revenue analysis to examine the relationship between the costs of the rule to current (or pre-rule) dental office revenues as a screening analysis. In addition, EPA chose to examine the financial impacts of the rule using two measures that utilize the data EPA has on dental office baseline assets and estimated replacement capital costs: (1) Ratio of the Final Rule's Capital Costs to Total Dental Office Capital Assets and (2) Ratio of the Final Rule's Capital Costs to Annual Dental Office Capital Replacement Costs.

    EPA did not conduct a traditional closure analysis for this final rule because EPA does not have detailed data on baseline financial conditions of dental offices. Also, closure analyses typically rely on accounting measures such as present value of after-tax cash flow, and such accounting measures are difficult to implement for businesses that are organized as sole proprietorships or partnerships, as typically is the case in the dental industry. EPA considered whether it should exclude these offices from the analyses, which is described further in EPA's proposal (79 FR 63272; October 22, 2014). Because EPA did not receive any comments to the contrary, EPA used the same assumptions for this final rule as it did at proposal with regard to low-revenue offices. EPA concluded that offices making less than $25,400 were baseline closures as traditionally accounted for in cost and economic impact analysis for effluent guidelines rulemakings. Using the Economic Census, EPA estimated that to be approximately 531 offices. Still, because of the uncertainty here, EPA analyzed the impacts twice: (1) Excluding dental offices that could represent baseline closures and (2) including all offices in the analysis. For each of the three analyses conducted below, EPA used the same methodology for the final rule's impact analysis as described in the proposal because EPA did not receive any comments to suggest a different approach for each impact analysis. Lastly, EPA used a 7 percent discount rate for the costs used in these three analyses described below. See the proposed rule for further description of the analyses below (79 FR 63272; October 22, 2014).

    1. Cost-to-Revenue Analysis

    To provide an assessment of the impact of the rule on dental offices, EPA used a cost-to-revenue analysis as is standard practice when looking at impacts to small businesses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to determine if a rule has the potential to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The cost-to-revenue analysis compares the total annualized compliance cost of each regulatory option with the revenue of the entities.

    EPA estimated the occurrence of annualized compliance costs exceeding the 1 percent and 3 percent of revenue thresholds for the final rule twice: (1) Excluding dental offices that could represent baseline closures (excluding baseline set-aside offices), and (2) including all offices in the analysis (including baseline set-aside offices).

    Table IX-3 summarizes the results from this analysis. As shown there, under either scenario, over 99 percent of dental offices subject to this rule would incur annualized compliance costs of less than 1 percent of revenue. With baseline set-asides excluded from the analysis, 808 offices (0.7 percent of offices using dental amalgam and exceeding the set-aside revenue threshold) are estimated to incur costs exceeding 1 percent of revenue; no offices are estimated to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of revenue. With baseline set-asides included in the analysis, 1,217 offices (1 percent of offices using dental amalgam) are estimated to incur costs exceeding 1 percent of revenue; 174 offices (0.1 percent of offices using dental amalgam) are estimated to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of revenue.

    Table IX-3—Cost-to-Revenue Analysis Impact Summary Number of chairs Total offices by chair size Costs >1% revenue Number Percent Costs >3% revenue Number Percent Excluding Baseline Set-Aside Offices from Analysis 1-2 chairs 12,914 808 6.3 0 0.0 3 chairs 27,353 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 chairs 29,619 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 chairs 16,087 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 chairs 11,177 0 0.0 0 0.0 7-14 chairs 19,163 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 116,313 808 0.7 0 0.0 Including Baseline Set-Aside Offices in Analysis 1-2 chairs 12,914 1,217 9.4 174 1.4 3 chairs 27,353 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 chairs 29,619 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 chairs 16,087 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 chairs 11,177 0 0.0 0 0.0 7-14 chairs 19,163 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 116,313 1,217 1.0 174 0.1 2. Ratio of the Rule's Capital Costs to Total Dental Office Capital Assets

    This ratio examines the initial spending on capital costs of compliance in relation to the baseline value of assets on the balance sheet of dental office businesses. EPA assumes a low ratio implies limited impact on dental offices' ability to finance the initial spending on capital costs of the final rule. A high ratio may still allow costs to be financed but could imply a need to change capital planning and budgeting.

    Table IX-4 reports the findings from this analysis, specifically the weighted average of the initial spending on the proposed rule's capital costs divided by total assets of dental office across the revenue range/number-of-chairs analysis combinations. With baseline set-asides excluded from the analysis, the resulting initial capital costs to total capital assets values are low, with an average value 0.4 percent to 0.7 percent for the no technology in-place case and zero percent for the technology in-place case. With baseline closures included in the analysis, the resulting initial capital costs to total capital assets values are low, with an average value 0.4 percent to 0.7 percent for the no technology in-place case and 0 percent for the technology in-place case.

    Table IX-4—Initial Spending as Percentage of Pre-Rule Total Dental Office Capital Assets1 Number of chairs Technology in place Low High No technology in place Low High Excluding Baseline Set-Aside Offices from Analysis 1-2 chairs 0.1 0.0 2.4 1.2 3 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 4 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 5 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 6 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 7-14 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Weighted Average 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 Including Baseline Set-Aside Offices in Analysis 1-2 chairs 0.1 0.0 3.0 1.5 3 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 4 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 5 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 6 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 7-14 chairs 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Weighted Average 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 1 EPA used the baseline asset value for the minimum (reported as low) and maximum (reported as high) revenue values by number-of-chairs category as the denominator for the ratio. Total final rule compliance costs, as described in Section IX above, were assigned to each number-of-chairs category as the numerator for the ratio. 3. Comparison of the Rule's Capital Costs to Annual Dental Office Capital Replacement Costs

    EPA also compared the initial spending on capital costs of compliance associated with this rule to the estimated capital replacement costs for a dental office business (e.g., computer systems, chairs, x-ray machines, etc.) across all chair sizes. The capital replacement costs represent a value that dental offices may reasonably expect to spend in any year to replace and/or upgrade dental office capital equipment. EPA assumes a low ratio implies limited impact on dental offices' ability to finance the initial spending on capital costs of the final rule. A high ratio may still allow costs to be financed but could imply a need to change capital planning and budgeting. As expected, the results for this ratio are higher than the previous ratio in the test above, given that EPA expects replacement costs would be smaller than total capital assets. EPA performed this test because this ratio is based on a different data source, and so it provides an independent check that abstracts from the limitations of the data used in the test above. The resulting values for the final rule range from 2.0 percent to 2.8 percent, with a weighted average of 2.4 percent across all chair size ranges.

    Table IX-5—Initial Spending as Percentage of Estimated Annual Dental Office Capital Replacement Costs 1 Number of chairs Percent 1-2 chairs 2.7 3 chairs 2.8 4 chairs 2.3 5 chairs 2.0 6 chairs 2.3 7 chairs 2.5 8 chairs 2.3 9 chairs 2.1 Weighted Average 2.4 1 EPA estimated capital replacement costs, accounting for the total value of equipment purchases for different numbers of chairs, and the composition of purchases by equipment life category by number-of-chairs as the denominator for the ratio. EPA assigned total final rule compliance costs, as described above in Section IX, to each number-of-chairs as the numerator for the ratio. C. Economic Achievability

    The analyses performed above inform the potential economic impact of this final rule on the dental office sector. In the cost-to-revenue analysis, EPA found that no more than 0.1 percent of offices, mostly in the lower revenue ranges, would potentially incur costs in excess of 3 percent of revenue. The two financial ratios reported in Tables IX-3 and IX-4 show that the final rule will not cause dental offices to encounter difficulty in financing initial spending on capital costs of the final rule. Based on the combined results of the three analyses and that EPA had no data since proposal to suggest otherwise, EPA determined that the final rule is economically achievable. Regarding large offices, EPA notes that, due to a lack of data, the economic impact analyses did not include large institutional offices. EPA did not receive comments indicating large offices would be impacted more or less than other dental offices subject to this rule. Given the results of the economic analysis performed on a range of office sizes indicating that the rule is economically achievable, EPA finds the rule would similarly be achievable for large institutional offices.

    EPA determined that the final pretreatment standard for new sources will not be a barrier to entry. EPA relied on data describing the equipment needs and costs for starting a dental practice as compiled in Safety Net Dental Clinic Manual, prepared by the National Maternal & Child Oral Health Resource Center at Georgetown University (see DCN DA00143). Information from the Georgetown Manual demonstrates that the amalgam separator capital costs (based on costs for existing model offices as described in Section VII) comprised 0.2 percent to 0.3 percent of the cost of starting a dental practice as shown in Table IX-6 and, therefore, does not pose a barrier to entry.

    Table IX-6—Initial Spending as Percentage of Estimated Dental Office Start-Up Costs Number of chairs Percent 1-2 chairs 0.3 3 chairs 0.3 4 chairs 0.3 5 chairs 0.2 6 chairs 0.3 7 chairs 0.3 8 chairs 0.3 9 chairs 0.3 Weighted Average 0.3 X. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    EPA often uses cost-effectiveness analysis in the development and revision of ELGs to evaluate the relative efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants from effluent discharges to our nation's waters. Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing PSES or PSNS, cost-effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants.

    EPA defines the cost-effectiveness of a regulatory option as the incremental annual cost (in 1981 constant dollars to facilitate comparison to ELGs for other industrial categories promulgated over different years) per incremental toxic-weighted pollutant removals for that option. For more information about the methodology, data, and results, see Chapter 12 of the TEDD. EPA determines toxic-weighted pollutant removals for a particular pollutant by multiplying the number of pounds of a pollutant removed by an option by a toxic weighting factor (TWF). The toxic weighting factor for each pollutant measures its toxicity relative to copper,24 with more toxic pollutants having higher toxic weights. The use of toxic weights allows EPA to express the removals of different pollutants on a constant toxicity basis as toxic-pound- equivalents (lb-eq). In the case of indirect dischargers, the removal also accounts for the effectiveness of treatment at POTWs and reflects the toxic-weighted pounds after POTW treatment. The TWFs for the pollutants of concern are shown in Table X-1.

    24 When EPA first developed TWFs in 1981, it chose the copper freshwater chronic aquatic life criterion of 5.6 μg/L as the benchmark scaling factor for deriving TWFs because copper was a common and well-studied toxic chemical in industrial waste streams. Consequently, the basic equation for deriving the TWF for any chemical is: TWF = 5.6 μg/L/Aquatic Life Value (μg/L) + 5.6 μg/L/Human Health Value (μg/L). The chronic freshwater aquatic life criterion for copper, however, has been revised three times since it was first published in 1980 due to advances in the scientific understanding of its toxic effects. Thus, when calculating the TWF for copper, EPA normalizes the 1998 chronic freshwater aquatic life copper criterion of 9.0 μg/L to the original 1980 copper criterion of 5.6 μg/L by dividing 5.6 μg/L by 9.0 μg/L and adding the quotient to 5.6 μg/L divided by the copper human health value of 4444 μg/L, which results in a copper TWF of 0.623.

    Table X-1—Toxic Weighting Factors for Pollutants in Dental Amalgam Mercury 110 Silver 16.47 Tin 0.301 Copper 0.623 Zinc 0.047

    The costs used in the cost-effectiveness analyses are the estimated annual pre-tax costs described in Section IX, restated in 1981 dollars as a convention to allow comparisons with the reported cost effectiveness of other effluent guidelines. Collectively, the final PSES requirements have a cost-effectiveness ratio of $190-$195/lb-equivalent as shown in Table X-2 below. This cost-effectiveness ratio falls within the range of cost-effectiveness ratios for PSES requirements in other industries. A review of approximately 25 of the most recently promulgated or revised categorical pretreatment standards shows PSES cost-effectiveness ranges from less than $1/lb-equivalent (Inorganic Chemicals) to $380/lb-equivalent (Transportation Equipment Cleaning) in 1981 dollars.

    Table X-2—PSES Cost Effectiveness Analysis Final option Pre-tax total annualized costs
  • ($1981 M)
  • Removals
  • (lbs-eq)
  • Average cost effectiveness
    Colorado Survey $23.5 123,552 $190 ADA National Survey 24.1 123,552 195
    XI. Environmental Assessment A. Environmental Impacts

    EPA conducted a literature review concerning potential environmental impacts associated with mercury in dental amalgam discharged to surface water by POTWs (DCN DA00148). As discussed above, studies indicate that dental offices are the largest source of mercury entering POTWs. The total annual baseline discharge of dental mercury to POTWs is approximately 10,239 pounds (5.1 tons): 10,198 pounds are in the form of solid particles (99.6 percent) and 41 pounds (0.4 percent) are dissolved in the wastewater (DCN DA00018). Through POTW treatment, approximately 90 percent of dental mercury is removed from the wastewater and transferred to sewage sludge. The 10 percent of dental mercury not removed by POTW treatment is discharged to surface water. EPA estimates that POTWs annually discharge approximately 1,003 pounds of dental mercury nationwide.

    The CWA regulations known as Standards for Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR part 503, control the land application, surface disposal, and incineration of sewage sludge generated by POTWs. Of the 11.2 billion dry pounds of sewage sludge generated annually, about 60 percent, or 6.7 billion pounds, are treated to produce biosolids for beneficial use as a soil amendment and applied to about 0.1 percent of agricultural lands in the United States (DCN DA00257). Approximately 5,500 pounds per year of dental mercury are contained in land- applied biosolids.

    Approximately 18 percent, or 2 billion pounds, of the sewage sludge generated annually by POTWs are surface disposed in sewage sludge mono-fills or municipal landfills. Approximately 1,700 pounds per year of dental mercury are contained in surface disposed sewage sludge. Pollutant limits and monitoring requirements for surface disposed sewage sludge mono-fills are set by 40 CFR part 503 and by 40 CFR part 258 for municipal landfills. There may be additional state or local regulations that are more stringent than the federal biosolids regulations.

    The remaining 22 percent, or 2.5 billion pounds, of sewage sludge generated annually by POTWs is disposed of through incineration. Approximately 2,000 pounds per year of dental mercury are contained in incinerated sewage sludge. 40 CFR part 503, subpart E sets requirements for the incineration of mercury and other toxic metals in sludge. For mercury, subpart E provides that incineration of sludge must meet the requirements of the National Emissions Standards for Mercury in subpart E of 40 CFR part 61.

    Environmental assessment of impacts associated with POTW discharges of dental mercury is complicated by uncertainties about the fate and transport of mercury in aquatic environments. The elemental form of mercury used in dentistry has low water solubility and is not readily absorbed when ingested by humans, fish, or wildlife. However, elemental mercury may be converted into highly toxic methylmercury in aquatic environments by certain forms of anaerobic sulfate-reducing bacteria. Methylmercury has high potential to become increasingly concentrated up through aquatic food chains as larger fish eat smaller fish. Fish commonly eaten by humans may have methylmercury levels 100,000 times that of ambient water. The neurological effects of consumption of methylmercury-contaminated fish are well documented. Developmental effects to fetuses, infants, children, and fish consumption by women of childbearing age are of special concern. Neurological effects from predation of methylmercury-contaminated fish have been documented to occur in wild populations of fish, birds, and mammals in many areas of the United States (DCN DA00202). A plausible link has been identified between anthropogenic sources of mercury in the United States and methylmercury in fish. However, fish methylmercury concentrations also result from existing background concentrations of mercury which may consist of mercury from natural sources and atmospheric deposition of mercury in the United States from sources in other countries. Given the current scientific understanding of the environmental fate and transport of mercury, it is not possible to quantify how much of the methylmercury in fish consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by U.S. emissions relative to international mercury sources or natural mercury sources.

    EPA was unable to assess the specific environmental impacts of dental mercury discharged by POTWs due to insufficient data needed to evaluate several fundamental factors about the discharge, fate, and transport of dental mercury in aquatic environments, including: the degree and geographic extent of dental mercury methylation in aquatic environments, the amount of methylated dental mercury that is taken up by fish and wildlife, the human consumption rates of fish contaminated with methylated dental mercury, and the extent and magnitude of naturally- occurring mercury in aquatic environments.

    B. Environmental Benefits

    While EPA did not perform a quantitative environmental benefits analysis of the final rule, due to insufficient data about the aquatic fate and transport of dental mercury discharged by POTWs, EPA was able to assess the qualitative environmental benefits based on existing information. For example, EPA identified studies that show that decreased point-source discharges of mercury to surface water result in lower methylmercury concentrations in fish. Moreover, several studies quantify economic benefits from improved human health and ecological conditions resulting from lower fish concentrations of methylmercury (DCN DA00148). The final pretreatment standards will produce human health and ecological benefits by reducing the estimated annual nationwide POTW discharge of dental mercury to surface water from 1,003 pounds to 11 pounds.

    XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts Associated With the Technology Basis of the Rule

    Eliminating or reducing one form of pollution may cause other environmental problems. Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements) associated with effluent limitations guidelines and standards. To comply with these requirements, EPA considered the potential impact of the technology basis on energy consumption, air pollution, and solid waste generation. As shown below, EPA anticipates that the rule would produce minimal non-water quality environmental impacts and as such determined they are acceptable. Additional information about the analysis of these non-water quality impacts is contained in the TEDD.

    A. Energy Requirements

    Net energy consumption considers the incremental electrical requirements associated with operating and maintaining dental amalgam separators used in combination with BMPs that form the technology basis for the standards. As described in Section V, most amalgam separators use sedimentation, either alone or in conjunction with filtration to remove solids in the waste stream. Most separators rely on gravity or the suction of the existing vacuum system to operate, and do not require an additional electrical power source. As noted in Section V, some separators have warning indicators that require a battery or power source. EPA does not anticipate this would pose any considerable energy requirements. Moreover, the addition of an amalgam separator is likely to reduce energy consumption at dental offices that do not currently employ an amalgam separator as it will prevent small particles from impeding the vacuum pump impeller. A clean impeller is more efficient than a dirty impeller, and thus will draw less energy (DCN DA00465). Upon consideration of all of these factors, EPA concludes there will be no significant energy requirements associated with this final rule.

    B. Air Emissions

    Unbound mercury is highly volatile and can easily evaporate into the atmosphere. An estimated 99.6 percent of dental mercury discharges are in solid bound form; i.e. elemental mercury bound to amalgam particles (DCN DA00018). Because the majority of dental mercury is bound to solid particles, it likely will not volatize to the atmosphere. Therefore, EPA expects the final PSES and PSNS will not pose any increases in air pollution.

    C. Solid Waste Generation

    In the absence of amalgam separators, a portion of the amalgam rinsed into chair-side drains is collected by chair-side traps. The remainder is discharged to the POTW where the vast majority is removed from the wastewater and becomes part of the POTW sludge that may be land-applied, disposed of in landfills or mono-fills, or incinerated. EPA expect the final rule to increase the use of amalgam separators nationwide by one and a half times with a corresponding increase in collection and recycling of used amalgam from the spent separator canisters. EPA expects the operation and maintenance requirements associated with the amalgam separator compliance option included in the final rule will further promote recycling as the primary means of amalgam waste management, because many amalgam separator manufactures and dental office suppliers have begun offering waste handling services that send dental amalgam waste to retorting and recycling facilities. Nationally, EPA expects less dental amalgam will be discharged to POTWs leading to reductions in the amount of mercury discharged to surface waters and land-applied, landfilled, or released to the air during incineration of sludge. Instead, EPA expects that the waste will be collected in separator canisters and recycled. After the amalgam containing waste has been recycled, the canisters are either recycled or landfilled. For purposes of assessing the incremental solid waste generation, EPA conservatively assumes all of the canisters are landfilled. EPA finds that if each dental office generated an average of 2 pounds of spent canisters per year, the total mass of solid waste generated would still comprise less than 0.0001 percent of the 254 million tons of solid waste generated by Americans annually (DCN DA00496). Based on this evaluation of incremental solid waste generation, EPA concludes there will not be a significant incremental non-water quality impact associated with solid waste generation as a result of this final rule.

    XIII. Standards for Reference

    This rule references standards from the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association and the International Organization for Standardization, and in compliance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (see Section XIV). They are available either at EPA's Water Docket (see ADDRESSES section above) for inspection, or on their respective Web sites to everyone at a cost determined by the respective Web site, generally from $100 to $150. The cost of obtaining these standards is not a significant financial burden for a discharger or environmental laboratory, making the standards reasonably available. The individual standards are discussed in greater detail below.

    The installation, operation, and maintenance of one or more amalgam separators compliant with either the ADA 2009 standard with the 2011 addendum, or the ISO standard when removing dental amalgam solids from all amalgam process wastewater:

    • ANSI/ADA Specification No. 108:2009, American National Standard/American Dental Association Specification No. 108 Amalgam Separators.

    • ANSI/ADA Specification No. 108:2009 Addendum, American National Standard/American Dental Association Specification No. 108 Amalgam Separators, Addendum.

    • International Standard ISO 11143;2008, Dentistry—Amalgam Separators.

    XIV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.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 a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The economic analysis is available in the docket (DCN DA00458) and is briefly summarized in Section IX. The benefits are summarized in Section XI.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2514.02. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

    EPA estimates it would take a total annual average of 402,000 hours and $7.2 million for affected dental offices to collect and report the information required in the final rule. This estimate includes effort for each dental office associated with completing a one-time compliance report. EPA based this estimate on average labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the dental office personnel involved in collecting and reporting the information required. EPA estimates it would take a total annual average of 34,000 hours and $2.02 million for Control Authorities to review the information submitted by dental offices. EPA estimates that there would be no start-up or capital costs associated with the information described above. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320(b).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce the approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities in this final rule.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are defined as: (1) A small business in the Dental Office sector (NAICS 621210) with annual receipts of 7.5 million dollars or less (based on SBA size standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    The Agency has determined that 116,014 dental offices out of 116,720 dental offices potentially subject to this final rule meet the small business definition. EPA's analysis of projected impacts on small dental offices is described in detail in Section IX. EPA projects less than 1 percent of 116,720 affected dental offices would incur compliance costs exceeding 1 percent of revenue and no more than 0.2 percent would incur compliance costs exceeding 3 percent of revenue.

    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. First, this final rule will allow dental offices with existing separators to satisfy the requirements for a period of up to 10 years. Second, EPA significantly reduced the rule's reporting requirements for all affected dental offices as compared to the reporting requirements for other industries with categorical pretreatment standards.

    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. The annual cost of the final rule is $59 to $61 million; thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA, because it contains no regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has not identified any dental offices that are owned by small governments. While this final rule impacts government entities required to administer pretreatment standards, small governments will generally not be affected. By statute, a small government jurisdiction is defined as a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C 601). Control authorities are responsible for oversight and administration associated with this final rule. A POTW is required to become a Control Authority when it (or a combination of POTWs operated by the same authority) has a design flow of at least 5 million gallons per day and receives pollutants from industrial users that would pass through or interfere with the operations and cause a violation of the POTW's NPDES permit. The average water use per person is 100 gallons per day so a POTW with a population less than 50,000 would likely have a flow less than 5 MGD. Therefore, EPA does not expect small government owned POTWs to be required to become a Control Authority. EPA is aware that some small POTWs have approved pretreatment programs so they serve as a Control Authority. To the extent small POTWs with pre-existing approved pretreatment programs receive dental discharges subject to this rule, they would incur some incremental oversight requirements as described in Section VI. However, EPA expects such cases to be limited.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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. This final rule contains no Federal mandates for Tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 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 EPA does not project the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This final rule will reduce the amount of mercury from dental amalgam entering POTW's and eventually the nation's waters, which will reduce impacts to the neurological development of children.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. EPA determined that any additional energy usage would be insignificant to the total energy usage of Dental Offices and total annual U.S. energy consumption.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This final rule involves technical standards. The Agency decided to use the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) American National Standard/American Dental Association (ADA) Specification 108 for Amalgam Separators (2009) with Technical Addendum (2011) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 11143 Standard (2008) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) efficiency standards for amalgam separators (ISO 11143) developed in 1999 and updated in 2008. One approach to meet the standards in this rule is to install and operate an amalgam separator(s) compliant with one of these standards or their equivalent. These voluntary standard setting organizations established a standard for measuring amalgam separator efficiency by evaluating the retention of amalgam mercury using specified test procedures in a laboratory setting. They also include requirements for instructions for use and operation and maintenance.

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

    EPA determined 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). While EPA was unable to perform a detailed environmental justice analysis because it lacks data on the location of POTWs to which dental discharges currently occur, this final rule will increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This final rule will reduce the amount of mercury from dental amalgam entering POTW's and eventually the nation's waters, to benefit all of society, including minority communities.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 441

    Environmental protection, Dental, Dental office, Dentist, Mercury, Pretreatment, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 441 is amended by adding part 441 to read as follows:

    PART 441—DENTAL OFFICE POINT SOURCE CATEGORY Sec. 441.10 Applicability. 441.20 General definitions. 441.30 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). 441.40 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). 441.50 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361. 42 U.S.C. 13101-13103.

    § 441.10 Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, this part applies to dental dischargers.

    (b) Unless otherwise designated by the Control Authority, dental dischargers subject to this part are not Significant Industrial Users as defined in 40 CFR part 403, and are not “Categorical Industrial Users” or “industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment standards” as those terms and variations are used in 40 CFR part 403, as a result of applicability of this rule.

    (c) This part does not apply to dental dischargers that exclusively practice one or more of the following dental specialties: Oral pathology, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, periodontics, or prosthodontics.

    (d) This part does not apply to wastewater discharges from a mobile unit operated by a dental discharger.

    (e) This part does not apply to dental dischargers that do not discharge any amalgam process wastewater to a POTW, such as dental dischargers that collect all dental amalgam process wastewater for transfer to a Centralized Waste Treatment facility as defined in 40 CFR part 437.

    (f) Dental Dischargers that do not place dental amalgam, and do not remove amalgam except in limited emergency or unplanned, unanticipated circumstances, and that certify such to the Control Authority as required in § 441.50 are exempt from any further requirements of this part.

    § 441.20 General definitions.

    For purposes of this part:

    (a) Amalgam process wastewater means any wastewater generated and discharged by a dental discharger through the practice of dentistry that may contain dental amalgam.

    (b) Amalgam separator means a collection device designed to capture and remove dental amalgam from the amalgam process wastewater of a dental facility.

    (c) Control Authority is defined in 40 CFR 403.3(f).

    (d) Dental amalgam means an alloy of elemental mercury and other metal(s) that is used in the practice of dentistry.

    (e) Dental Discharger means a facility where the practice of dentistry is performed, including, but not limited to, institutions, permanent or temporary offices, clinics, home offices, and facilities owned and operated by Federal, state or local governments, that discharges wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

    (f) Duly Authorized Representative is defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l)(3).

    (g) Existing Sources means a dental discharger that is not a new source.

    (h) Mobile unit means a specialized mobile self-contained van, trailer, or equipment used in providing dentistry services at multiple locations.

    (i) New Sources means a dental discharger whose first discharge to a POTW occurs after July 14, 2017.

    (j) Publicly Owned Treatment Works is defined in 40 CFR 403.3(q).

    § 441.30 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    No later than July 14, 2020, any existing source subject to this part must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

    (a) Removal of dental amalgam solids from all amalgam process wastewater by one of the following methods:

    (1) Installation, operation, and maintenance of one or more amalgam separators that meet the following requirements:

    (i) Compliant with either the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) American National Standard/American Dental Association (ADA) Specification 108 for Amalgam Separators (2009) with Technical Addendum (2011) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 11143 Standard (2008) or subsequent versions so long as that version requires amalgam separators to achieve at least a 95% removal efficiency. Compliance must be assessed by an accredited testing laboratory under ANSI's accreditation program for product certification or a testing laboratory that is a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation's Mutual Recognition Arrangement. The testing laboratory's scope of accreditation must include ANSI/ADA 108-2009 or ISO 11143.

    (ii) The amalgam separator(s) must be sized to accommodate the maximum discharge rate of amalgam process wastewater.

    (iii) A dental discharger subject to this part that operates an amalgam separator that was installed at a dental facility prior to June 14, 2017, satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section until the existing separator is replaced as described in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section or until June 14, 2017, whichever is sooner.

    (iv) The amalgam separator(s) must be inspected in accordance with the manufacturer's operating manual to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the separator(s) and to confirm that all amalgam process wastewater is flowing through the amalgam retaining portion of the amalgam separator(s).

    (v) In the event that an amalgam separator is not functioning properly, the amalgam separator must be repaired consistent with manufacturer instructions or replaced with a unit that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) of this section as soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days after the malfunction is discovered by the dental discharger, or an agent or representative of the dental discharger.

    (vi) The amalgam retaining units must be replaced in accordance with the manufacturer's schedule as specified in the manufacturer's operating manual or when the amalgam retaining unit has reached the maximum level, as specified by the manufacturer in the operating manual, at which the amalgam separator can perform to the specified efficiency, whichever comes first.

    (2) Installation, operation, and maintenance of one or more amalgam removal device(s) other than an amalgam separator. The amalgam removal device must meet the following requirements:

    (i) Removal efficiency of at least 95 percent of the mass of solids from all amalgam process wastewater. The removal efficiency must be calculated in grams recorded to three decimal places, on a dry weight basis. The removal efficiency must be demonstrated at the maximum water flow rate through the device as established by the device manufacturer's instructions for use.

    (ii) The removal efficiency must be determined using the average performance of three samples. The removal efficiency must be demonstrated using a test sample of dental amalgam that meets the following particle size distribution specifications: 60 percent by mass of particles that pass through a 3150 µm sieve but which do not pass through a 500 µm sieve, 10 percent by mass of particles that pass through a 500 µm sieve but which do not pass through a 100 µm sieve, and 30 percent by mass of particles that pass through a 100 µm sieve. Each of these three specified particle size distributions must contain a representative distribution of particle sizes.

    (iii) The device(s) must be sized to accommodate the maximum discharge rate of amalgam process wastewater.

    (iv) The devices(s) must be accompanied by the manufacturer's manual providing instructions for use including the frequency for inspection and collecting container replacement such that the unit is replaced once it has reached the maximum filling level at which the device can perform to the specified efficiency.

    (v) The device(s) must be inspected in accordance with the manufacturer's operation manual to ensure proper operation and maintenance, including confirmation that amalgam process wastewater is flowing through the amalgam separating portion of the device(s).

    (vi) In the event that a device is not functioning properly, it must be repaired consistent with manufacturer instructions or replaced with a unit that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section as soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days after the malfunction is discovered by the dental discharger, or an agent or representative of the dental discharger.

    (vii) The amalgam retaining unit(s) of the device(s) must be replaced as specified in the manufacturer's operating manual, or when the collecting container has reached the maximum filling level, as specified by the manufacturer in the operating manual, at which the amalgam separator can perform to the specified efficiency, whichever comes first.

    (viii) The demonstration of the device(s) under paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section must be documented in the One-Time Compliance Report.

    (b) Implementation of the following best management practices (BMPs):

    (1) Waste amalgam including, but not limited to, dental amalgam from chair-side traps, screens, vacuum pump filters, dental tools, cuspidors, or collection devices, must not be discharged to a POTW.

    (2) Dental unit water lines, chair-side traps, and vacuum lines that discharge amalgam process wastewater to a POTW must not be cleaned with oxidizing or acidic cleaners, including but not limited to bleach, chlorine, iodine and peroxide that have a pH lower than 6 or greater than 8.

    (c) All material is available for inspection at EPA's Water Docket, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, Telephone: 202-566-2426, and is available from the sources listed below.

    (1) The following standards are available from the American Dental Association (ADA), 211 East Chicago Ave., Chicago IL 60611-2678, Telephone 312-440-2500, http://www.ada.org.

    (i) ANSI/ADA Specification No. 108:2009, American National Standard/American Dental Association Specification No. 108 Amalgam Separators. February 2009.

    (ii) ANSI/ADA Specification No. 108:2009 Addendum, American National Standard/American Dental Association Specification No. 108 Amalgam Separators, Addendum. November 2011.

    (2) The following standards are available from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Telephone 212-642-4900, http://webstore.ansi.org.

    (i) International Standard ISO 11143:2008, Dentistry—Amalgam Separators. Second edition, July 1, 2008.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    § 441.40 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    As of July 14, 2017, any new source subject to this part must comply with the requirements of § 441.30(a) and (b) and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of § 441.50.

    § 441.50 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Dental Dischargers subject to this part must comply with the following reporting requirements in lieu of the otherwise applicable requirements in 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), (e), and (g).

    (1) One-Time Compliance Report deadlines. For existing sources, a One-Time Compliance Report must be submitted to the Control Authority no later than October 12, 2020, or 90 days after a transfer of ownership. For new sources, a One-Time Compliance Report must be submitted to the Control Authority no later than 90 days following the introduction of wastewater into a POTW.

    (2) Signature and certification. The One-Time Compliance Report must be signed and certified by a responsible corporate officer, a general partner or proprietor if the dental discharger is a partnership or sole proprietorship, or a duly authorized representative in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 403.12(l).

    (3) Contents. (i) The One-Time Compliance Report for dental dischargers subject to this part that do not place or remove dental amalgam as described at § 441.10(f) must include the: facility name, physical address, mailing address, contact information, name of the operator(s) and owner(s); and a certification statement that the dental discharger does not place dental amalgam and does not remove amalgam except in limited circumstances.

    (ii) The One-Time Compliance Report for dental dischargers subject to the standards of this part must include:

    (A) The facility name, physical address, mailing address, and contact information.

    (B) Name(s) of the operator(s) and owner(s).

    (C) A description of the operation at the dental facility including: The total number of chairs, the total number of chairs at which dental amalgam may be present in the resulting wastewater, and a description of any existing amalgam separator(s) or equivalent device(s) currently operated to include, at a minimum, the make, model, year of installation.

    (D) Certification that the amalgam separator(s) or equivalent device is designed and will be operated and maintained to meet the requirements specified in § 441.30 or § 441.40.

    (E) Certification that the dental discharger is implementing BMPs specified in § 441.30(b) or § 441.40(b) and will continue to do so.

    (F) The name of the third-party service provider that maintains the amalgam separator(s) or equivalent device(s) operated at the dental office, if applicable. Otherwise, a brief description of the practices employed by the facility to ensure proper operation and maintenance in accordance with § 441.30 or § 441.40.

    (4) Transfer of ownership notification. If a dental discharger transfers ownership of the facility, the new owner must submit a new One-Time Compliance Report to the Control Authority no later than 90 days after the transfer.

    (5) Retention period. As long as a Dental Discharger subject to this part is in operation, or until ownership is transferred, the Dental Discharger or an agent or representative of the dental discharger must maintain the One-Time Compliance Report required at paragraph (a) of this section and make it available for inspection in either physical or electronic form.

    (b) Dental Dischargers or an agent or representative of the dental discharger must maintain and make available for inspection in either physical or electronic form, for a minimum of three years:

    (1) Documentation of the date, person(s) conducting the inspection, and results of each inspection of the amalgam separator(s) or equivalent device(s), and a summary of follow-up actions, if needed.

    (2) Documentation of amalgam retaining container or equivalent container replacement (including the date, as applicable).

    (3) Documentation of all dates that collected dental amalgam is picked up or shipped for proper disposal in accordance with 40 CFR 261.5(g)(3), and the name of the permitted or licensed treatment, storage or disposal facility receiving the amalgam retaining containers.

    (4) Documentation of any repair or replacement of an amalgam separator or equivalent device, including the date, person(s) making the repair or replacement, and a description of the repair or replacement (including make and model).

    (5) Dischargers or an agent or representative of the dental discharger must maintain and make available for inspection in either physical or electronic form the manufacturers operating manual for the current device.

    [FR Doc. 2017-12338 Filed 6-12-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 80, 90, 97, and 101 [ET Docket No. 15-99; FCC 17-33] WRC-12 Implementation Report and Order AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission implemented allocation changes from the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2012) (WRC-12) and updated its service rules. The Commission took this action to conform its rules, to the extent practical, to the decisions that the international community made at WRC-12. This action will promote the advancement of new and expanded services and provide significant benefits to the American public.

    DATES:

    Effective July 14, 2017, except for amendments to §§ 97.3, 97.15(c), 97.301(b) through (d), 97.303(g), 97.305(c), and 97.313(k) and (l), which contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date once OMB approves.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Mooring, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-2450, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, ET Docket No. 15-99, FCC 17-33, adopted March 27, 2017, and released March 29, 2017. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-33A1.pdf. 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).

    Summary of Report and Order

    1. On April 23, 2015, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WRC-12 NPRM) in this proceeding, 80 FR 38315, July 2, 2015. In this Report and Order (WRC-12 R&O), the Commission amended the Table of Frequency Allocations (Allocation Table) in § 2.106 of its rules and a number of related service rules to implement certain radio frequency (RF) allocation decisions from the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2012) (WRC-12 Final Acts). The following are the major actions that the Commission took to support non-Federal spectrum requirements:

    • Allocated the 472-479 kHz band to the amateur service on a secondary basis and amended part 97 to provide for amateur service use of this band and of the 135.7-137.8 kHz band.

    • Amended part 80 to authorize radio buoy operations in the 1900-2000 kHz band under a ship station license.

    • Allocated eight frequency bands in the 4 to 44 MHz range to the radiolocation service for Federal and non-Federal use, limited to oceanographic radars. The Commission also amended part 90 to provide for licensing of oceanographic radars, and required those radars currently operating under an experimental license to conform their operations to the adopted rules within five years of the effective date of this Order.

    • Reallocated the 156.7625-156.7875 MHz and 156.8125-156.8375 MHz bands to the mobile-satellite service (MSS) (Earth-to-space) on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use, limited to the reception of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) broadcast messages from ships. The Commission also amended part 80 to permit ships to transmit AIS broadcast messages in these bands, and amended part 25 to permit MSS satellites to receive in these bands and in the existing AIS bands.

    • Allocated the 5000-5091 MHz band to the aeronautical mobile (route) service (AM(R)S) on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. AM(R)S use of the 5000-5030 MHz band extends the tuning range for the recently-established Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System (AeroMACS) that will support surface applications at airports. AM(R)S use of the 5030-5091 MHz band will support unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

    Discussion

    2. In the WRC-12 R&O, the Commission amended Parts 2, 15, 25, 80, 90, and 97 of its rules to implement specific allocations from the WRC-12 Final Acts that affect a number of frequency bands between 8.3 kHz and 3000 GHz and to adopt related service rules. These actions are described in greater detail below.

    A. Amateur Radio Use of the 135.7-137.8 kHz and 472-479 kHz Bands

    3. As proposed in the WRC-12 NPRM, the Commission allocated the 472-479 kHz band to the amateur service on a secondary basis and limited the maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of amateur stations using this band to five watts in the United States, except for that portion of Alaska that is within 800 kilometers of the Russian Federation's borders, where the maximum EIRP is limited to one watt.

    4. The amateur service will share this band with Power Line Carrier (PLC) systems, which electric utility companies use and operate in the 9-490 kHz range under part 15 of the Commission's rules on an unprotected and non-interference basis with respect to authorized radio users. While the Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) objected to the Commission's allocation proposal on the basis that an increased interference potential between amateur operations and PLC systems could deprive utilities of the flexibility needed to deploy PLC systems, the amateur radio community supported this allocation as useful for improving technical knowledge on radio propagation and because they believed that co-existence with PLC systems is possible due to existing amateur service operations on frequencies near 500 kHz under experimental licenses that have not resulted in any interference complaints.

    5. The Commission agreed that adding a secondary amateur service allocation to the 472-479 kHz band will provide new opportunities for amateur operators to experiment with equipment, techniques, antennas, and propagation phenomena. The 472-479 kHz band offers amateur service operators different propagation characteristics from the 135.7-137.8 kHz band, which was allocated on a secondary basis to amateur service in the WRC-07 Report and Order. Further, a secondary allocation to the amateur service harmonizes the United States and international allocations for this band and provide new opportunities for amateur service experimentation. At the same time, the Commission recognized the importance of PLC systems and their impact on utility safety, security and reliability of utility operations, and found that co-existence between PLC systems and amateur radio operations in these bands is possible under the service rules the Commission adopted in this Order.

    6. As proposed in the WRC-12 NPRM, the Commission removed several allocations from the 135.7-137.8 kHz and 472-479 kHz bands. It deleted the non-Federal fixed service (FS) and maritime mobile service (MMS) allocations from the 135.7-137.8 kHz band because there are no non-Federal stations in the FS and MMS that are licensed to operate in this band, and because it found that any future requirements for non-Federal stations in the FS or MMS can be accommodated in other frequency bands. However, because there is some limited Federal use of this band, the Commission maintained the existing primary FS and MMS allocations in the Federal Table. The Commission deleted the Federal MMS and aeronautical radionavigation service (ARNS) allocations and the non-Federal MMS allocation from the 472-479 kHz band. NTIA has not authorized any Federal stations in the ARNS or MMS to operate in the 472-479 kHz band, and there is only limited use of the non-Federal MMS allocation. Any future requirements for non-Federal MMS stations can be accommodated in other frequency bands. However, there are two non-Federal licensees that operate three public coast stations under their current licenses on a primary basis. The Commission grandfathered operation of these stations by amending § 80.357(b)(1) to limit the use of the 472-479 kHz band to public coast stations that were licensed as of the effective date of this Report and Order and by adding a footnote to the Table of Allocations that grandfathers the following licensees to operate public coast stations on a primary basis in the 472-479 kHz band pursuant to their current radio station authorization, subject to periodic renewals: Global HF Net LLC (call signs KFS and WNU) and New England Historical Radio Society, Inc. (call sign WNE).

    7. The Commission adopted service rules for the amateur radio service in the 135.7-137.8 kHz (2200 meter band) and 472-479 kHz (630 meter band) bands that will ensure the compatibility of amateur radio operations and PLC systems that operate in these bands, and promote the shared use of these bands. Under these rules, electric utilities will not be required to modify existing PLC systems to accommodate amateur operations, and previously notified amateur stations will not be required to alter their operations to accommodate new or modified PLC operations.

    8. As proposed, the Commission will permit amateur stations to operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz and 472-479 kHz bands when separated by a specified distance from electric power transmission lines with PLC systems that use the same bands. To support the operations of both the amateur service and PLC systems in these bands, the Commission adopted a minimum horizontal separation distance of one kilometer between the transmission line and the amateur station when operating in these bands.

    9. Regarding operations in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band, ARRL provided a technical analysis in ET Docket No. 12-338, which concluded that PLC systems “will be sufficiently protected from amateur stations transmitting at an EIRP of 1 W with a separation distance of 1 km from the transmission lines carrying the PLC signals, beyond which there is no interference potential.” UTC agreed with this conclusion and supported a separation distance of at least one kilometer for amateur operation in this band. While ARRL preferred that amateur stations have the option to be located closer to the transmission lines with PLC systems and recommended a notification procedure to address any potential interference to PLC systems, the Commission found that a one kilometer separation distance reasonably ensures that PLC systems and amateur radio stations are unlikely to experience interference. In addition, establishing a zone where amateur use is not authorized will simplify and streamline the process for determining whether an amateur station can transmit in these bands when in proximity to transmission lines upon which PLC systems operate.

    10. The Commission adopted the same separation distance for amateur operations in the 472-479 kHz band, as it did for the 135.7-137.8 kHz band, since these bands share the same considerations for co-existence of the two uses.

    11. The Commission restricted amateur service operations to fixed locations and prohibited mobile operations in these bands. This restriction will ensure that amateur stations remain at the locations specified in their notification and comply with the separation distance requirements discussed below. UTC and some amateur service commenters supported this restriction. The Commission will allow temporary fixed use at sites that meet its technical rules and follow its notification requirements. In other words, the location of the amateur station must not be located within one kilometer of PLC systems and its operations must be in accordance with part 97 rules.

    12. The Commission required amateur operators to notify UTC of the location of their proposed station prior to commencing operations, to confirm that the station is not located within the one kilometer separation distance. Even though several amateur service commenters claimed that they can readily identify transmission lines and compute the separation distance, the Commission found that transmission lines are not always readily identifiable. Further, amateur operators may not be able to determine whether PLC systems operate in the relevant bands on the subject transmission lines. The notification requirement will entail notifying UTC of the operator's call sign and coordinates of the proposed station's location for confirmation that the location is outside the one kilometer separation distance, or the relevant PLC system is not transmitting on the requested bands. UTC, which maintains a database of PLC systems must respond to the notification within 30 days if it objects. If UTC raises no objection, amateur radio operators may commence operations on the band identified in their notification. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a public notice providing the details for filing notifications with UTC.

    13. The notification procedures the Commission adopted seek to strike a balance between amateur operations used for experimental purposes and PLC operation used by electric utilities for the reliability and security of electric service to the public. These procedures are the least burdensome considering the Commission seeks to ensure that no potential interference occurs from these two uses. A simple notification to UTC with a 30-day waiting period does not appear to be burdensome. Amateur operations can commence as soon as that period expires. While ARRL sought direct access to the PLC database, the Commission noted that UTC has control of the PLC database which can be updated, and found no reason to mandate its release to another party especially considering the sensitive nature of information it contains.

    14. If an electric utility seeks to deploy a new or modified PLC system on a transmission line that is within one kilometer of a previously coordinated amateur station, the electric utility must employ a frequency in the 9-490 kHz range that has not been included in the amateur station's notification, as ARRL suggests. If the previously coordinated amateur station no longer operates in the band, the electric utility may deploy a PLC system in that band.

    15. As discussed in the WRC-12 NPRM, the Commission adopted maximum EIRP limits and transmitter power limits for the new amateur service bands. Amateur stations may operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band with a maximum radiated power of one watt EIRP. The Commission found that amateur stations operating in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band should be subject only to the general part 97 limit of 1.5 kW peak envelope power (PEP). The Commission found it unnecessary to limit the transmitter power beyond what it is already provided for in its rules, because antennas used in this frequency band are highly inefficient in converting the RF power delivered to the antenna terminals.

    16. The Commission also adopted the power limits proposed in the WRC-12 NPRM for amateur stations operating in the 472-479 kHz band. For such stations, the maximum radiated power will be five watts EIRP, except for stations located in the portion of Alaska that is within 800 kilometers of the Russian Federation, where the EIRP will be limited to one watt. The Commission also limited the transmitter power for amateur radio operations in the 472-479 kHz band to 500 watts PEP; provided, however, that the resulting radiated power does not exceed five watts EIRP. In other words, it may be necessary to reduce transmitter power below 500 watts PEP to avoid exceeding the five watts EIRP limit.

    17. As discussed in the WRC-12 NPRM, the Commission required that the antennas used to transmit in these bands not exceed 60 meters in height above ground level, as ARRL proposed. The adoption of this height restriction will aid in the sharing of these amateur service bands with PLC systems by limiting the potential for amateurs' signals to exceed the adopted EIRP limits with longer, higher gain antennas, and could reduce the number of antenna structures that must comply with the Federal Aviation Administration notification and obstruction marking and lighting requirements in part 17 of the Commission's rules.

    18. As discussed in the WRC-12 NPRM, the Commission made these bands available for Amateur Extra, Advanced and General Class licensees. Consistent with its proposal in the WRC-12 NPRM and with the existing rules in § 97.305 for the frequency bands below 30 MHz, the Commission authorized amateur stations to transmit the following emission types throughout the new amateur bands: CW (international Morse code telegraphy), RTTY (narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy), data, phone, and image emissions. These emission types provide amateur operators with maximum flexibility, and the Commission found that additional restrictions would needlessly hinder experimentation.

    19. The Commission amended § 97.303 to list the radiocommunication services that must be protected from harmful interference. Specifically, amateur stations transmitting in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band must not cause harmful interference to, and must accept interference from, stations authorized by the United States Government in the fixed and maritime mobile services and stations authorized by other nations in the fixed, maritime mobile, and radionavigation services. Amateur stations transmitting in the 472-479 kHz band must not cause harmful interference to, and must accept interference from, stations authorized by the Commission in the maritime mobile service and stations authorized by other nations in the maritime mobile and aeronautical radionavigation services.

    20. The Commission declined to prohibit automatically controlled stations from operating in these bands. Further, as proposed in the WRC-12 NPRM, the Commission added definitions for the terms effective radiated power, isotropically radiated power and LF (low frequency) in section 97.3 of its rules. Finally, the Commission declined to permit previously licensed experimental stations—some of which have been authorized with significantly more radiated power than the adopted EIRP limits for these new amateur service bands—to communicate with amateur stations operating in these bands. Amateur operations in these bands currently authorized under experimental licenses should transition their operations in accordance with the adopted rules and not circumvent such rules by use of experimental licenses.

    B. Radio Buoys Operating in the 1900-2000 kHz Band

    21. The Commission allocated the 1900-2000 kHz band to the MMS on a primary basis for non-Federal use in ITU Regions 2 and 3, and limited the use of this allocation to radio buoys on the open sea and the Great Lakes. Section 80.5 of the Commission's rules define open sea as the water area of the open coast seaward of the ordinary low-water mark, or seaward of inland waters. This allocation addresses the limited situations where radio buoys cannot be authorized under the radiolocation service allocation because of newer technology that uses features like GPS rather than radiodetermination.

    22. In the WRC-07 R&O, the Commission recognized the public benefit associated with the use of radio buoys by the U.S. commercial fishing fleet, and in the WRC-12 NPRM the Commission proposed revisions to its rules that would provide radio buoy operators with a legitimate path to operate. In doing so, the Commission proposed to geographically limit the use of the MMS allocation, and the existing radiolocation service allocation, to radio buoys used by the U.S. commercial fishing fleet on the open sea, but sought comment on whether the geographic area should be extended to include the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, or other inland waters.

    23. The Commission recognized ARRL's concerns that radio buoy manufacturers will not be able to ensure where fishing vessels will be using radio buoys. However, the Commission believes that amateur radio and radio buoys can continue to share this frequency band as they have done for many years. Because radio buoys are low-power and narrow-bandwidth devices, while amateur stations tend to use much higher power, the Commission believes that they can continue to be accommodated with minimal impact on amateur radio operations. Any intermittent interference amateur operators may receive in the 1900-2000 kHz band from lower-powered radio buoys is not expected to significantly hamper amateur operations in the band because amateur operators can readily tune around these narrow radio buoy signals and because the adjacent 1800-1900 kHz band is allocated exclusively for amateur radio use. Although the Commission had requested comment on rules that would have effectively permitted radio buoys to operate on any waters where the United States exercises sovereignty, the Commission was persuaded by ARRL's comments to adopt final rules that are better tailored to the places where the commercial fishing fleet can make reasonable and productive use of radio buoys. The Commission thus found it in the public interest to permit commercial fishing vessels to use these buoys on the open sea and the Great Lakes.

    24. Also, the Commission amended, as proposed, footnote NG92 to provide that the co-primary services in the 1900-2000 kHz band are protected from harmful interference only to the extent that the offending station is not operating in accordance with the technical rules. This statement clarifies that co-primary allocations in the 1900-2000 kHz band (i.e., the amateur, radiolocation, and maritime mobile services) share the same type of interference protection—one that protects only from a violation of the technical rules. Radio buoys and amateur stations have co-equal status and therefore have the same level of interference protection from each other.

    25. The Commission declined to make additional spectrum available for radio buoy use. In the WRC-12 NPRM the Commission sought comment on alternative approaches that would allow continued radio buoy use by the U.S. commercial fishing fleet, including allocating additional spectrum. Several amateur radio commenters requested that new radio buoys be transitioned to another nearby frequency band. However, the Commission did not agree that additional spectrum is necessary for radio buoy operations because the 1900-2000 kHz band can be successfully shared with amateurs and the number of radio buoys does not appear to be significant enough to require a different allocation. In addition, as stated above, the 1800-1900 kHz band is already allocated for exclusive amateur use, and the record does not indicate that this exclusive allocation is insufficient and that the public interest would be served by creating an additional exclusive allocation for amateur use at 1900-2000 kHz. Therefore, it appeared unnecessary for the Commission to make additional spectrum available for exclusive amateur use at this time by relocating low-power radio buoys out of the 1900-2000 kHz band.

    26. The Commission amended part 80 of its rules to authorize the use of frequencies in the 1900-2000 kHz band for radio buoy operations under a ship station license provided that the use of these frequencies is related to commercial fishing operations, the transmitter output power does not exceed 8 watts, and the station antenna height does not exceed 4.6 meters above sea level in a buoy station or 6 meters above the mast of the ship on which it is installed.

    27. In the WRC-12 NPRM, the Commission proposed to authorize buoy stations in the 1900-2000 kHz band, provided that the output power does not exceed 10 watts and the station antenna height does not exceed 4.6 meters above sea level in a buoy station or 6 meters above the mast of the ship on which it is installed. While part 90 did not establish power limits in this band, no equipment authorization has been sought with an output power over 8 watts. To address some of the amateur community's concerns over potential interference from these radio buoys, the Commission limited radio buoys transmitter output power to 8 watts.

    28. The Commission found it unnecessary to provide the proposed six-month phase-out period for part 90 equipment authorizations considering that no applications for radio buoy equipment operating in the 1900-2000 kHz band have been submitted since the adoption of the WRC-12 NPRM. Hence, applications for equipment authorization of radio buoys must meet the new part 80 rules, as of the effective date of this Order. Also as proposed, the Commission grandfathered radio buoys authorized under § 90.103(b) prior to the cutoff date so they may continue to be manufactured, imported, and marketed under the previously approved equipment authorization.

    C. Aviation Services Uses in the 5000-5150 MHz Band

    29. The Commission took actions in support of aeronautical mobile (route) service (AM(R)S) surface applications at airports in the 5000-5030 MHz band and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the 5030-5091 MHz band. As proposed, the Commission allocated the 5000-5030 MHz bands to the AM(R)S on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use, for systems operating in accordance with international aeronautical standards, limited to surface applications at airports (i.e., AeroMACS). AeroMACS refers to a collection of high data rate wireless networks that are used for airport surface operations (i.e. ground-to-ground communications) to provide broadband communications between aircraft and other ground vehicles, as well as between critical fixed assets. AeroMACS is designed to support a wide variety of services and applications, including Air Traffic Control/Air Traffic Management and infrastructure functions, as well as airline and airport operations.

    30. In the WRC-07 R&O, the Commission made the globally harmonized 5091-5150 MHz band available for AeroMACS, expecting that it will be the main frequency band for deployment of AeroMACS. The Commission found that there is a need for additional spectrum, especially at the nation's busiest airports. This action extended the tuning range for AeroMACS to include the 5000-5030 MHz band in the United States.

    31. The Commission allocated the 5030-5091 MHz band to the AM(R)S on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use and added international footnote 5.443C to this band limiting the use to internationally standardized aeronautical systems and setting limits for unwanted emissions from AM(R)S stations to adjacent band radionavigation-satellite service (RNSS) downlinks to an EIRP density of -75 dBW/MHz. The WRC-12 NPRM proposal, which was based on the U.S. Proposals for WRC-12, noted that the 5030-5091 MHz band would be appropriate to satisfy the terrestrial, line-of-sight, spectrum requirements for command and control of UAS in non-segregated airspace. The Commission adopted the AM(R)S allocation to support the anticipated growth of UAS and promote their safe operation. Technical and operational rules relating to altitude, weight, or other requirements will be addressed in the service rules for this band, which will be promulgated in a separate proceeding.

    32. As proposed, the Commission added an entry in the U.S. Table that reflects the primary aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S) allocation in the 5000-5150 MHz band, previously reflected in a footnote. Further, the Commission adopted two international footnotes that limit the AMS(R)S allocation to internationally standardized aeronautical systems.

    D. Protecting Passive Sensors in the 86-92 GHz Band

    33. The Commission did not adopt proposed footnote US162, which would have encouraged fixed service operators transmitting in the adjacent bands (81-86 GHz and 92-94 GHz) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their unwanted emissions power in the 86-92 GHz passive band does not exceed WRC-12's non-mandatory unwanted emissions levels.

    34. The 86-92 GHz band is allocated to the Earth exploration-satellite service (EESS) (passive), radio astronomy service, and space research service (passive). WRC-12 sought to protect the EESS passive sensors that receive in this band, proposed non-mandatory protection requirements from out-of-band emissions from active services in adjacent bands and “urge[d] administrations to take all reasonable steps to ensure” that such emissions do not exceed the recommended maximum levels. The WRC-12 NPRM proposed the adoption of a footnote that would “encourage operators of fixed stations [. . .] to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their unwanted emissions in the 86-92 GHz does not exceed WRC-12's non-mandatory unwanted emission levels” (emphasis added).

    35. The Commission recognized that the proposed footnote US162 provides emission limits that are significantly more stringent than those in part 101 and concluded that adoption of the footnote would be confusing for incumbent users of the adjacent bands and would not provide any meaningful protection for the EESS passive sensors in the 86-92 GHz band beyond that already required under part 101 of the rules. Further, the adoption of the underlying emission limits for the protection of the EESS passive sensors in the 86-92 GHz band, an action supported by CORF, would require a proceeding in order to develop a record that could support changes to the existing rules. The current proceeding does not provide the appropriate proper framework to address such changes. In addition, there are other proceedings underway addressing part 101 emission mask rules governing fixed operations in these bands that may be better suited in examining these considerations.

    E. Passive Use of Bands Above 275 GHz

    36. As proposed, the Commission extended the U.S. Table of Allocations past the 275-1000 GHz band to 3000 GHz. These bands are “not allocated” to specific services, though passive services such as the EESS, space research service (SRS), and radio astronomy service already utilize portions of the 275-3000 GHz range for scientific observation. The Commission adopted a revised footnote US565 which incorporates language of the new international footnote 5.565 and of the proposed footnote US565.

    37. WRC-12 revised international footnote 5.565 to identify an additional 226 gigahertz of spectrum for passive spaceborne sensor use in the 275-990 GHz range. The footnote further urges administrations, when making those frequencies available for active service applications to take all practicable steps to protect these passive services from harmful interference, until the date when the Table of Frequency Allocations is established in the 275-1000 GHz frequency range. CORF, in its comments, generally supported the sharing of frequency allocations where practical, stating that technical factors associated with radio transmission in these high frequencies may well support shared use in many cases. However, CORF objected to the proposed U.S. footnote because it appears to be at odds with international footnote 5.565's “explicit goal of protecting passive uses.”

    38. The Commission did not agree with CORF's interpretation and was concerned that the text of international footnote 5.565 could be construed as placing a reservation for future passive service allocations in the U.S. Table, which would inhibit development of other radiocommunication services in this spectrum. Consistent with its tentatively conclusion in the WRC-12 NPRM, the Commission found that it is premature to establish a specific allocation in the U.S. Table in this frequency range and that it is unnecessary to place spectrum use restrictions in these frequencies. Instead, maintaining spectrum flexibility in these bands will encourage the development of new uses in the future.

    39. The Commission recognized that the 275-3000 GHz frequency range is used—and may be used more extensively in the future—for experimentation with, and development of, an array of active service applications. Because international footnote 5.565 can be interpreted as establishing an “allocation” for passive uses only, the Commission found that the text of this international footnote must be clarified. In particular, the Commission was not prepared to determine whether the frequency bands identified for use by passive service applications in international footnote 5.565 are entitled to interference protection from a yet-to-be proposed active service. For these reasons, the Commission revised existing footnote US565 to identify expected passive uses of the 275-1000 GHz range and to clarify that this footnote does not establish any priority of use in the U.S. Table, and does not preclude or constrain any active service use or future allocation of frequency bands in the 275-3000 GHz range. This clarifying text is sufficient, given that passive and active services can share frequencies above 275 GHz without constraints, especially considering the atmospheric absorption at these frequencies and the narrowness of the antenna beamwidths, which make sharing among different services possible.

    F. Rulemaking Proposals That Did Not Receive Any Specific Comments

    40. The Commission amended §§ 2.100, 2.102, 2.106, 80.215, 80.373, 80.871, 90.7, 90.103, and 90.425 of its rules to implement proposals in the WRC-12 NPRM that were not addressed by any of the commenters. It found these proposals implement important U.S. policy goals and serve the public interest for the reasons stated in the WRC-12 NPRM.

    41. Passive Systems for Lightning Detection (8.3-11.3 kHz). The Commission allocated the 8.3-9 kHz and 9-11.3 kHz bands to the meteorological aids service on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. The Commission also adopted international footnote 5.54A, limiting use of these frequency bands to passive use only. Consequently, the Commission revised Section 2.102(a) to require that the assignment of frequencies between 8.3 kHz and 275 GHz be in accordance with the Allocation Table.

    42. Maritime Mobile Service Use of the Frequency 500 kHz. The Commission allocated the 495-505 kHz band to the maritime mobile service, removes the aeronautical mobile and land mobile service portions of the existing allocation, and removes the existing distress and calling restriction.

    43. Oceanographic Radar Applications in the 4-44 MHz Range. The Commission allocated seven frequency bands (4.438-4.488 MHz, 5.25-5.275 MHz, 16.1-16.2 MHz, 24.45-24.65 MHz, 26.2-26.42 MHz, 41.015-41.665 MHz, and 43.35-44 MHz) to the radiolocation service (RLS) on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use, and allocate the 13.45-13.55 MHz band to the RLS on a secondary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. The Commission added footnotes to the U.S. Table that prohibit oceanographic radars transmitting in these bands from causing harmful interference to, or claiming protection from, existing and future stations in the incumbent fixed and mobile services. The Commission also raised to primary status the secondary mobile except aeronautical mobile service allocation in the 5.25-5.275 MHz band, so that existing and future stations in this service can also be protected from interference from oceanographic radars. Next, the Commission amended part 90 of its rules by adding the oceanographic radar bands to the Radiolocation Service Frequency Table and took other associated actions that incorporate WRC-12's operational requirements for oceanographic radars and allowed licensees of existing experimental stations to apply for part 90 licenses. Finally, the Commission required that all oceanographic radar licensees currently operating under part 5 of the rules transition their operations to frequencies within an allocated band within five years of the effective date of this Report and Order.

    44. Improved Satellite-AIS Capability. To improve satellite detection of messages from maritime Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), the Commission reallocated two bands—156.7625-156.7875 MHz (AIS 3) and 156.8125-156.8375 MHz (AIS 4)—to the mobile-satellite service (MSS), restricted to Earth-to-space (uplink) operations, on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. The Commission revised footnote US52 to restrict the use of these MSS uplink allocations to the reception of long-range AIS broadcast messages from ships. The Commission removed the primary MMS allocation from these bands and amends the relevant rules to remove references to these MMS frequencies. The Commission further revised footnote US52 to grandfather the single MMS licensee (BKEP Materials, LLC) until the expiration date of its licenses (August 26, 2019). The Commission amended Section 80.203 to clarify that it will no longer accept applications for certification of non-AIS VHF radios that include channels 75 (156.775 MHz) and 76 (156.825 MHz) as of the effective date of this Report and Order. Finally, the Commission added to Section 80.393 the simplex channels at 156.775 MHz (AIS 3) and 156.825 MHz (AIS 4) and it added to Section 25.202 these bands and the existing AIS bands (161.9625-161.9875 MHz and 162.0125-162.0375 MHz).

    45. Allocating the 22.55-23.15 GHz and 25.5-27 GHz Bands to the Space Research Service. The Commission amended the U.S. Table to allocate the 22.55-23.15 GHz band to the SRS (Earth-to-space) on a primary basis for both Federal and non-Federal use and to add a reference to international footnote 5.532A. In addition, the Commission added a primary non-Federal SRS (space-to-Earth) allocation to the companion 25.5-27 GHz band, which currently is allocated to the SRS (space-to-Earth) only for Federal use.

    46. Deletion of Aeronautical Mobile Service from the 37-38 GHz Band. The Commission amended the U.S. Table to limit the existing primary mobile service allocation in the 37-38 GHz band only to the land mobile and maritime mobile services. In other words, this primary allocation entry will read “MOBILE except aeronautical mobile” service.

    47. Allocating the 7850-7900 MHz Band to the Federal Meteorological-Satellite Service. The Commission allocated the 7850-7900 MHz band to the meteorological satellite-service (MetSat) (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis for Federal use and adopt international footnote 5.461B restricting use of the allocation to non-geostationary systems. As consequence of this action, the larger 7750-7900 MHz band is now allocated to the fixed service and the meteorological satellite-service (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis for Federal use, and per international footnote 5.461B, MetSat use of this band is limited to non-geostationary satellite systems.

    48. Allocating the 15.4-15.7 GHz Band to the Federal Radiolocation Service. The Commission allocated the 15.4-15.7 GHz band to the RLS on a primary basis for Federal use. The Commission also added international footnotes 5.511E and 5.511F to the Federal Table, which require that RLS stations operating in the 15.4-15.7 GHz band not cause harmful interference to, or claim protection from, stations operating in the aeronautical radionavigation service, and not exceed the power flux-density level of −156 dB(W/m2) in a 50 MHz bandwidth in the 15.35-15.4 GHz band, at any radio astronomy observatory site for more than 2 percent of the time. Also, the Commission adopted footnote US511E, which limits RLS use of the 15.4-15.7 GHz band to Federal systems requiring a necessary bandwidth greater than 1600 MHz that cannot be accommodated within the band 15.7-17.3 GHz, except that radar systems requiring use of the band 15.4-15.7 GHz for testing, training, and exercises may be accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

    49. Other Administrative Matters. The Commission adopted its proposal to update footnote NG49 and renumbered this footnote as NG16. Specifically, the Commission no longer lists the individual frequencies within the footnote, and it removed the geographic restriction from this footnote. These updates will bring the U.S. Table in line with existing service rules. The Commission also amended Section 2.100 of its rules to state that the ITU Radio Regulations, Edition of 2012, have been incorporated to the extent practicable in part 2.

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    50. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) 1 requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 2 The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 3 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.4 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 Small Business Administration (SBA).5

    1 The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

    2 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    3 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    4 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 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.”

    5 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.

    51. In this Report and Order, the Commission took three actions that will cause a direct cost to regulated entities. First, the Commission required that all commercial fishing vessels that operate radio buoys in the 1900-2000 kHz band be authorized under a ship radio station license. Based on the comments of ITM Marine in ET Docket No. 12-338, there are between 750 and 1000 active commercial fishing vessels that operate such radio buoys.6 The Commission expects that some of these fishing vessels are owned by small businesses that do not already have a ship radio station license. Because the total cost for a ship radio station license is $215, the Commission found that the direct cost of this requirement will be far less than one percent of revenue for any future small business licensee.

    6See Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 74, 78, 87, 90, and 97 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2007) (WRC-07), Other Allocation Issues, and Related Rule Updates, ET Docket 12-338, Comments of Steve Beaver (March 4, 2013) at 1 (“We estimate that there are at least 500 active [high seas migratory species fishing] vessels, and possible 250-500 more in the USA, which are using radio buoys.”).

    52. Second, the Commission required that oceanographic radars, which currently operate under experimental license authority, operate in accordance with the adopted part 90 rules within five years of the effective date of this Report and Order. Based on its review of licenses in the Commission's Experimental Licensing System, the adopted rules will affect nine universities and one manufacturer. Based on information provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Commission believes that, in most cases, existing oceanographic radars can transition to the nearest allocated band without major hardware modification.7 The Commission noted that only two of these universities are private institutions (Cornell University and San Francisco University) that meet the definition of small organization, see 5 U.S.C. 601(4). The Commission further noted that there “are 1,600 private, nonprofit institutions nationwide,” 8 and the great majority of these are clearly small organizations. Therefore, the Commission found that requiring oceanographic radars to operate under the adopted part 90 rules will impact far less than one percent of private, nonprofit academic institutions that are small organizations. The Commission also believes that the single licensee that is a manufacturer (CODAR Ocean Sensor, Ltd.) will be positively impacted because it has committed to “produce, sell, and support [oceanographic radars] that operate in all of the ITU allocated bands and conform to any local regulations.” 9

    7See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Summary of WRC-12 HF Radar Frequency Outcomes (Jan. 26, 2012) (“In most cases, transitioning to the nearest allocated band should not require major hardware modification”), http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/hfradar/summary_wrc_12outcomes.pdf.

    8See “Quick Facts About Private Colleges” by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (http://www.naicu.edu/about/page/quick-facts-about-private-colleges#Institution).

    9See “Outcome of the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference: Oceanographic HF Radars Officially Recognized by ITU,” March 2012, by CODAR Ocean Sensors (http://www.codar.com/news_03_2012_2.shtml).

    53. Third, the Commission reallocated the 156.7625-156.7875 MHz and 156.8125-156.8375 MHz bands from MMS to the mobile-satellite service, and requires that MMS operations in these bands cease as of August 26, 2019. There is a single licensee (BKEP Materials, LLC) authorized to operate three private coast stations in these bands. Based on its review of licenses in the Commission's Universal Licensing System, the Commission has issued 2770 licenses for private coast stations to operate in the 156-157.1 MHz band. The Commission estimated that at least 1000 of these licensees are small entities. Therefore, the Commission found that these reallocations will impact far less than one percent of the total number of small entities operating in the 156-157.1 MHz band.

    54. Therefore, the Commission certified that the requirements of this Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order including this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Report and Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    55. This Report and Order contains new information collections subject to the PRA, Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to OMB for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. The Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting comment on the new information collection requirements adopted herein. The requirements will not go into effect until OMB has approved it and the Commission has published a notice announcing the effective date of the information collection requirements. In this document, the Commission has assessed the potential effects of the prior notification requirement for amateur service operations in the 135.7-137.8 kHz and 472-479 kHz bands, and found that there will in the great majority of instances be a de minimis paperwork burden for amateur service licensees resulting from the collection of information by the Utilities Telecom Council. Finally, the Commission noted that, because “small entities,” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, are not persons eligible for licensing in the amateur service, this rule does not apply to “small entities.” Therefore, the requirement in the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), that the Commission seek to further reduce this information requirement burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees does not apply.

    Congressional Review Act

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

    Ordering Clauses

    57. Pursuant to sections 1, 4, 301, 302, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 302a, and 303, this Report and Order is hereby adopted and the Commission's rules are amended as set forth below.

    58. The rule amendments adopted herein shall be effective 30 days after date of Federal Register publication of the Report and Order, except for §§ 97.3, 97.15(c), 97.301(b) through (d), 97.303(g), 97.305(c), and 97.313(k) and (l), because § 97.303(g)(2) contains a new information collection requirement that requires approval by OMB under the PRA. These rules sections shall be effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.

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

    60. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 2

    Radio, Telecommunications.

    47 CFR Parts 15, 80, 90, and 97

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2, 15, 25, 80, 90, and 97 as follows:

    PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Revise § 2.100 to read as follows:
    § 2.100 International regulations in force.

    The ITU Radio Regulations, Edition of 2012, have been incorporated to the extent practicable in this part.

    3. In § 2.102, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 2.102 Assignment of frequencies.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the assignment of frequencies and bands of frequencies to all stations and classes of stations and the licensing and authorizing of the use of all such frequencies between 8.3 kHz and 275 GHz, and the actual use of such frequencies for radiocommunication or for any other purpose, including the transfer of energy by radio, shall be in accordance with the Table of Frequency Allocations in § 2.106.

    4. In § 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations is amended as follows: a. Pages 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15-20, 23-24, 41-42, 45, 51, 53-54, 57, and 67-68 are revised. b. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, footnotes US52, US231, US246, and US565 are revised; footnotes US115, US132A, and US511E are added; and footnote US367 is removed. c. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnotes NG8 and NG16 are added, footnote NG49 is removed, and footnote NG92 is revised.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. BILLING CODE 6712-01-P ER14JN17.001 ER14JN17.002 ER14JN17.003 ER14JN17.004 ER14JN17.005 ER14JN17.006 ER14JN17.007 ER14JN17.008 ER14JN17.009 ER14JN17.010 ER14JN17.011 ER14JN17.012 ER14JN17.013 ER14JN17.014 ER14JN17.015 ER14JN17.016 ER14JN17.017 ER14JN17.018 ER14JN17.019 ER14JN17.020 ER14JN17.021 ER14JN17.022 ER14JN17.023 ER14JN17.024 ER14JN17.025 ER14JN17.026 BILLING CODE 6712-01-C United States (U.S.) Footnotes

    US52 In the VHF maritime mobile band (156-162 MHz), the following provisions shall apply:

    (a) Except as provided for below, the use of the bands 161.9625-161.9875 MHz (AIS 1 with center frequency 161.975 MHz) and 162.0125-162.0375 MHz (AIS 2 with center frequency 162.025 MHz) by the maritime mobile and mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space) services is restricted to Automatic Identification Systems (AIS). The use of these bands by the aeronautical mobile (OR) service is restricted to AIS emissions from search and rescue aircraft operations. Frequencies in the AIS 1 band may continue to be used by non-Federal base, fixed, and land mobile stations until March 2, 2024.

    (b) Except as provided for below, the use of the bands 156.7625-156.7875 MHz (AIS 3 with center frequency 156.775 MHz) and 156.8125-156.8375 MHz (AIS 4 with center frequency 156.825 MHz) by the mobile-satellite service (Earth-to-space) is restricted to the reception of long-range AIS broadcast messages from ships (Message 27; see most recent version of Recommendation ITU-R M.1371). The frequencies 156.775 MHz and 156.825 MHz may continue to be used by non-Federal ship and coast stations for navigation-related port operations or ship movement until August 26, 2019.

    (c) The frequency 156.3 MHz may also be used by aircraft stations for the purpose of search and rescue operations and other safety-related communication.

    (d) Federal stations in the maritime mobile service may also be authorized as follows: (1) Vessel traffic services under the control of the U.S. Coast Guard on a simplex basis by coast and ship stations on the frequencies 156.25, 156.55, 156.6 and 156.7 MHz; (2) Inter-ship use of the frequency 156.3 MHz on a simplex basis; (3) Navigational bridge-to-bridge and navigational communications on a simplex basis by coast and ship stations on the frequencies 156.375 and 156.65 MHz; (4) Port operations use on a simplex basis by coast and ship stations on the frequencies 156.6 and 156.7 MHz; (5) Environmental communications on the frequency 156.75 MHz in accordance with the national plan; and (6) Duplex port operations use of the frequencies 157 MHz for ship stations and 161.6 MHz for coast stations.

    US115 In the bands 5000-5010 MHz and 5010-5030 MHz, the following provisions shall apply:

    (a) In the band 5000-5010 MHz, systems in the aeronautical mobile (R) service (AM(R)S) are limited to surface applications at airports that operate in accordance with international aeronautical standards (i.e., AeroMACS).

    (b) The band 5010-5030 MHz is also allocated on a primary basis to the AM(R)S, limited to surface applications at airports that operate in accordance with international aeronautical standards. In making assignments for this band, attempts shall first be made to satisfy the AM(R)S requirements in the bands 5000-5010 MHz and 5091-5150 MHz. AM(R)S systems used in the band 5010-5030 MHz shall be designed and implemented to be capable of operational modification if receiving harmful interference from the radionavigation-satellite service. Finally, notwithstanding Radio Regulation No. 4.10, stations in the AM(R)S operating in this band shall be designed and implemented to be capable of operational modification to reduce throughput and/or preclude the use of specific frequencies in order to ensure protection of radionavigation-satellite service systems operating in this band.

    (c) Aeronautical fixed communications that are an integral part of the AeroMACS system in the bands 5000-5010 MHz and 5010-5030 MHz are also authorized on a primary basis.

    US132A In the bands 26.2-26.42 MHz, 41.015-41.665 MHz, and 43.35-44 MHz, applications of radiolocation service are limited to oceanographic radars operating in accordance with ITU Resolution 612 (Rev. WRC-12). Oceanographic radars shall not cause harmful interference to, or claim protection from, non-Federal stations in the land mobile service in the bands 26.2-26.42 MHz and 43.69-44 MHz, Federal stations in the fixed or mobile services in the band 41.015-41.665 MHz, and non-Federal stations in the fixed or land mobile services in the band 43.35-43.69 MHz.

    US231 When an assignment cannot be obtained in the bands between 200 kHz and 525 kHz, which are allocated to aeronautical radionavigation, assignments may be made to aeronautical radiobeacons in the maritime mobile bands at 435-472 kHz and 479-490 kHz, on a secondary basis, subject to the coordination and agreement of those agencies having assignments within the maritime mobile bands which may be affected. Assignments to Federal aeronautical radionavigation radiobeacons in the bands 435-472 kHz and 479-490 kHz shall not be a bar to any required changes to the maritime mobile service and shall be limited to non-voice emissions.

    US246 No station shall be authorized to transmit in the following bands: 73-74.6 MHz, 608-614 MHz, except for medical telemetry equipment 1 and white space devices,2 1400-1427 MHz, 1660.5-1668.4 MHz, 2690-2700 MHz, 4990-5000 MHz, 10.68-10.7 GHz, 15.35-15.4 GHz, 23.6-24 GHz, 31.3-31.8 GHz, 50.2-50.4 GHz, 52.6-54.25 GHz, 86-92 GHz, 100-102 GHz, 109.5-111.8 GHz, 114.25-116 GHz, 148.5-151.5 GHz, 164-167 GHz, 182-185 GHz, 190-191.8 GHz, 200-209 GHz, 226-231.5 GHz, 250-252 GHz.

    1 Medical telemetry equipment shall not cause harmful interference to radio astronomy operations in the band 608-614 MHz and shall be coordinated under the requirements found in 47 CFR 95.1119.

    2 White space devices shall not cause harmful interference to radio astronomy operations in the band 608-614 MHz and shall not operate within the areas described in 47 CFR 15.712(h).

    US511E The use of the band 15.4-15.7 GHz by the radiolocation service is limited to Federal systems requiring a necessary bandwidth greater than 1600 MHz that cannot be accommodated within the band 15.7-17.3 GHz except as described below. In the band 15.4-15.7 GHz, stations operating in the radiolocation service shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, radars operating in the aeronautical radionavigation service. Radar systems operating in the radiolocation service shall not be developed solely for operation in the band 15.4-15.7 GHz. Radar systems requiring use of the band 15.4-15.7 GHz for testing, training, and exercises may be accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

    US565 The following frequency bands in the range 275-1000 GHz are identified for passive service applications:

    —Radio astronomy service: 275-323 GHz, 327-371 GHz, 388-424 GHz, 426-442 GHz, 453-510 GHz, 623-711 GHz, 795-909 GHz and 926-945 GHz; —Earth exploration-satellite service (passive) and space research service (passive): 275-286 GHz, 296-306 GHz, 313-356 GHz, 361-365 GHz, 369-392 GHz, 397-399 GHz, 409-411 GHz, 416-434 GHz, 439-467 GHz, 477-502 GHz, 523-527 GHz, 538-581 GHz, 611-630 GHz, 634-654 GHz, 657-692 GHz, 713-718 GHz, 729-733 GHz, 750-754 GHz, 771-776 GHz, 823-846 GHz, 850-854 GHz, 857-862 GHz, 866-882 GHz, 905-928 GHz, 951-956 GHz, 968-973 GHz and 985-990 GHz.

    The use of the range 275-1000 GHz by the passive services does not preclude use of this range by active services. This provision does not establish priority of use in the United States Table of Frequency Allocations, and does not preclude or constrain any active service use or future allocation of frequency bands in the 275-3000 GHz range.

    Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes

    NG8 In the band 472-479 kHz, non-Federal stations in the maritime mobile service that were licensed or applied for prior to [insert effective date of the WRC-12 R&O] may continue to operate on a primary basis, subject to periodic license renewals.

    NG16 In the bands 72-73 MHz and 75.4-76 MHz, frequencies may be authorized for mobile operations in the Industrial/Business Radio Pool, subject to not causing interference to the reception of broadcast television signals on channels 4 and 5.

    NG92 The band 1900-2000 kHz is also allocated on a primary basis to the maritime mobile service in Regions 2 and 3 and to the radiolocation service in Region 2, and on a secondary basis to the radiolocation service in Region 3. The use of these allocations is restricted to radio buoy operations on the open sea and the Great Lakes. Stations in the amateur, maritime mobile, and radiolocation services in Region 2 shall be protected from harmful interference only to the extent that the offending station does not operate in compliance with the technical rules applicable to the service in which it operates.

    PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES 5. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.

    6. In § 15.113, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 15.113 Power line carrier systems.

    (g) Special provisions. An electric power utility entity shall not operate a new or modified power line carrier (PLC) system in the 135.7-137.8 kHz and/or 472-479 kHz bands if a previously coordinated amateur station pursuant to § 97.301(g)(2) of this chapter is located within one kilometer of the transmission lines conducting the PLC signal.

    PART 25—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 7. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

    8. In § 25.202, add paragraph (a)(12) to read as follows:
    § 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance, and emission limits.

    (a) * * *

    (12) The following frequencies are available for use by the mobile-satellite service (Earth-to-space) for the reception of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) broadcast messages from ships:

    156.7625-156.7875 MHz 156.8125-156.8375 MHz 161.9625-161.9875 MHz 162.0125-162.0375 MHz
    PART 80—STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES 9. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.

    10. In § 80.203, add paragraph (p) to read as follows:
    § 80.203 Authorization of transmitters for licensing.

    (p) As of [insert effective date of this Report and Order], the Commission will no longer accept applications for certification of non-AIS VHF radios that include channels 75 and 76.

    § 80.215 [Amended]
    11. In § 80.215, remove footnote 13 from paragraph (e)(1) and remove and reserve paragraph (g)(3). 12. In § 80.357, revise footnote 1 to the table in paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 80.357 Working frequencies for Morse code and data transmission.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    1 All frequencies in this table are shown in kilohertz. The use of frequencies in the 472-479 kHz band is restricted to public coast stations that were licensed on or before [insert effective date of this R&O].

    § 80.373 [Amended]
    13. In § 80.373, the table in paragraph (f) is amended under the heading “Port Operations” by removing the entries for channel designator 75 (156.775 MHz) and channel designator 76 (156.825 MHz), including the text of footnote 18; and under the heading “Noncommercial” by redesignating footnote 19 which is associated with channel designator 71 (156.575 MHz) as footnote 18. 14. Add § 80.376 under center heading “Radiodetermination” to read as follows:
    § 80.376 Radio buoy operations.

    Frequencies in the 1900-2000 kHz band are authorized for radio buoy operations under a ship radio station license provided:

    (a) The use of these frequencies is related to commercial fishing operations on the open sea and the Great Lakes; and

    (b) The output power does not exceed 8 watts and the station antenna height does not exceed 4.6 meters above sea level in a buoy station or 6 meters above the mast of the ship on which it is installed.

    15. Revise § 80.393 to read as follows:
    § 80.393 Frequencies for AIS stations.

    Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) are a maritime broadcast service. The simplex channels at 156.775 MHz (AIS 3), 156.825 MHz (AIS 4), 161.975 MHz (AIS 1), and 162.025 MHz (AIS 2), each with a 25 kHz bandwidth, may be authorized only for AIS. In accordance with the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the United States Coast Guard regulates AIS carriage requirements for non-Federal Government ships. These requirements are codified at 33 CFR 164.46, 401.20.

    § 80.871 [Amended]
    16. In § 80.871, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the entries for channel designator 75 (156.775 MHz) and channel designator 76 (156.825 MHz). PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES 17. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.

    18. In § 90.7, add a definition for “Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP)” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 90.7 Definitions.

    Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP). The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna (absolute or isotropic gain).

    19. Amend § 90.103 as follows: a. In the table in paragraph (b), revise the entries set out below; and b. Add paragraph (c)(3).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 90.103 Radiolocation Service.

    (b) * * *

    Radiolocation Service Frequency Table Frequency or band Class of station(s) Limitation Kilohertz *         *         *         *         *         *         * 4438 to 4488 Radiolocation land 3 5250 to 5275 ......do 3 Megahertz 13.45 to 13.55 ......do 3 16.10 to 16.20 ......do 3 24.45 to 24.65 ......do 3 26.20 to 26.42 ......do 3 41.015 to 41.665 ......do 3 43.35 to 44.00 ......do 3 420 to 450 Radiolocation land or mobile 21 *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (c) * * *

    (3) Operations in this band are limited to oceanographic radars using transmitters with a peak equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) not to exceed 25 dBW. Oceanographic radars shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from interference caused by, stations in the fixed or mobile services as specified in § 2.106, footnotes 5.132A, 5.145A, and US132A. See Resolution 612 of the ITU Radio Regulations for international coordination requirements and for recommended spectrum sharing techniques.

    20. In § 90.425, revise paragraph (c)(1) and add paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
    § 90.425 Station identification.

    (c) Special provisions for identification in the Radiolocation Service. (1) Stations in the Radiolocation Service are not required to identify except upon special instructions from the Commission or as required by paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section.

    (3) Oceanographic radars operating in the bands shown in section 90.103(b) shall transmit a station identification (call sign) on the assigned frequency, in international Morse code at a transmission rate in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section at the end of each data acquisition cycle, but at an interval of no more than 20 minutes.

    PART 97—AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE 21. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.

    22. In § 97.3, revise paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) and add paragraphs (b)(12) through (14) to read as follows:
    § 97.3 Definitions.

    (b) * * *

    (1) EHF (extremely high frequency). The frequency range 30-300 GHz.

    (2) EIRP (equivalent isotropically radiated power). The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna (absolute or isotropic gain).

    Note:

    Divide EIRP by 1.64 to convert to effective radiated power.

    (3) ERP (effective radiated power) (in a given direction). The product of the power supplied to the antenna and its gain relative to a half-wave dipole in a given direction.

    Note:

    Multiply ERP by 1.64 to convert to equivalent isotropically radiated power.

    (4) HF (high frequency). The frequency range 3-30 MHz.

    (5) Hz. Hertz.

    (6) LF (low frequency). The frequency range 30-300 kHz.

    (7) m. Meters.

    (8) MF (medium frequency). The frequency range 300-3000 kHz.

    (9) PEP (peak envelope power). The average power supplied to the antenna transmission line by a transmitter during one RF cycle at the crest of the modulation envelope taken under normal operating conditions.

    (10) RF. Radio frequency.

    (11) SHF (super high frequency). The frequency range 3-30 GHz.

    (12) UHF (ultra high frequency). The frequency range 300-3000 MHz.

    (13) VHF (very high frequency). The frequency range 30-300 MHz.

    (14) W. Watts.

    23. In § 97.15, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 97.15 Station antenna structures.

    (c) Antennas used to transmit in the 2200 m and 630 m bands must not exceed 60 meters in height above ground level.

    24. In § 97.301, amend the tables in each of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as follows: a. Add the sub-heading “LF” and the entry for the “2200 m” wavelength band; and b. Under the existing sub-heading “MF” add the entry for the “630 m” wavelength band.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 97.301 Authorized frequency bands.

    (b) * * *

    Wavelength band ITU Region 1 ITU Region 2 ITU Region 3 Sharing requirements see § 97.303
  • (paragraph)
  • LF kHz kHz kHz 2200 m 135.7-137.8 135.7-137.8 135.7-137.8 (a), (g). MF kHz kHz kHz 630 m 472-479 472-479 472-479 (g). *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (c) * * *

    Wavelength band ITU Region 1 ITU Region 2 ITU Region 3 Sharing requirements see § 97.303
  • (paragraph)
  • LF kHz kHz kHz 2200 m 135.7-137.8 135.7-137.8 135.7-137.8 (a), (g). MF kHz kHz kHz 630 m 472-479 472-479 472-479 (g). *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (d) * * *

    Wavelength band ITU Region 1 ITU Region 2 ITU Region 3 Sharing requirements see § 97.303
  • (paragraph)
  • LF kHz kHz kHz 2200 m 135.7-137.8 135.7-137.8 135.7-137.8 (a), (g). MF kHz kHz kHz 630 m 472-479 472-479 472-479 (g). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    25. In § 97.303, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 97.303 Frequency sharing requirements.

    (g) In the 2200 m and 630 m bands:

    (1) Amateur stations in the 135.7-137.8 kHz (2200 m) and 472-479 kHz (630 m) bands shall only operate at fixed locations. Amateur stations shall not operate within a horizontal distance of one kilometer from a transmission line that conducts a power line carrier (PLC) signal in the 135.7-137.8 kHz or 472-479 kHz bands. Horizontal distance is measured from the station's antenna to the closest point on the transmission line.

    (2) Prior to commencement of operations in the 135.7-137.8 kHz (2200 m) and/or 472-479 kHz (630 m) bands, amateur operators shall notify the Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) of their intent to operate by submitting their call signs, intended band or bands of operation, and the coordinates of their antenna's fixed location. Amateur stations will be permitted to commence operations after the 30-day period unless UTC notifies the station that its fixed location is located within one kilometer of PLC systems operating in the same or overlapping frequencies.

    (3) Amateur stations in the 135.7-137.8 kHz (2200 m) band shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall accept interference from:

    (i) Stations authorized by the United States Government in the fixed and maritime mobile services;

    (ii) Stations authorized by other nations in the fixed, maritime mobile, and radionavigation service.

    (4) Amateur stations in the 472-479 kHz (630 m) band shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall accept interference from:

    (i) Stations authorized by the FCC in the maritime mobile service;

    (ii) Stations authorized by other nations in the maritime mobile and aeronautical radionavigation services.

    (5) Amateur stations causing harmful interference shall take all necessary measures to eliminate such interference—including temporary or permanent termination of transmissions.

    26. In § 97.305, amend the table in paragraph (c) as follows: a. Add sub-heading “LF:” and two entries for the “2200 m” wavelength band; and b. Under existing sub-heading “MF:” add two entries for the “630 m” wavelength band.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 97.305 Authorized emission types.

    (c) * * *

    Wavelength band Frequencies Emission types authorized Standards see § 97.307(f),
  • paragraph:
  • LF: 2200 m Entire band RTTY, data (3). 2200 m Entire band Phone, image (1), (2). MF: 630 m Entire band RTTY, data (3). 630 m Entire band Phone, image (1), (2). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    27. In § 97.313, add paragraphs (k) and (l) to read as follows.
    § 97.313 Transmitter power standards.

    (k) No station may transmit in the 135.7-137.8 kHz (2200 m) band with a transmitter power exceeding 1.5 kW PEP or a radiated power exceeding 1 W EIRP.

    (l) No station may transmit in the 472-479 kHz (630 m) band with a transmitter power exceeding 500 W PEP or a radiated power exceeding 5 W EIRP, except that in Alaska, stations located within 800 kilometers of the Russian Federation may not transmit with a radiated power exceeding 1 W EIRP.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09887 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 113 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 5 CFR Chapter XXI 12 CFR Chapters I, V, XV, and XVIII 17 CFR Chapter IV 19 CFR Chapter I 26 CFR Chapter I 27 CFR Chapter I 31 CFR Subtitle A and Chapters I, II, IV Through VIII, IX, and X 48 CFR Chapter 10 Review of Regulations AGENCY:

    Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 30, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, to direct agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new regulation issued and to limit costs for this fiscal year to zero. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, which requires agencies to convene a regulatory reform task force to assist in the implementation of Executive Order 13771. In furtherance of those Executive Orders, this notice invites members of the public to submit views and recommendations for Treasury Department regulations that can be eliminated, modified, or streamlined in order to reduce burdens.

    DATES:

    Comment due date: July 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments in response to this notice according to the instructions below. All submissions must refer to the document title. Treasury encourages the early submission of comments.

    Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons must submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt, and enables the Department to make comments available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Public Inspection of Comments. In general, all properly submitted comments will be available for inspection and downloading at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Additional Instructions. In general, comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are made available to the public. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heidi Cohen, Office of the General Counsel (General Law, Ethics, and Regulation), 202-622-1142.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, requires agencies to convene a regulatory reform task force to assist in the implementation of Executive Order 13771 as well as Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

    The Department is forming such a task force, which will evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the Secretary to prioritize their possible repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law. The Executive Order 13777 requires the task force to attempt to identify for repeal, replacement or modification regulations that eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; impose costs that exceed benefits; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision; or derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.

    Executive Order 13777 encourages agencies to seek input from small businesses, state and local governments, trade associations, and other stakeholders significantly affected by regulations. Accordingly, this notice invites interested members of the public to provide input on those Treasury regulations and guidance that should be modified or eliminated in order to reduce burdens. Commenters should identify the regulation by title and citation to the Code of Federal Regulations and should explain how the regulations could be modified, if appropriate, or explain why the regulation should be eliminated. To the extent available, commenters should provide available data and an explanation of regulatory costs and compliance burdens.

    In particular, the Department invites comments on regulations, forms, and guidance documents issued or promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Departmental Offices (Office of the Secretary), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and Treasury regulations and guidance issued under the Department's Customs Revenue Function (19 CFR chapter 1).

    In its Notice 2017-28, Treasury and IRS invited public comment on recommendations for the 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan for tax guidance. That notice included a similar request for input pursuant to Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. Today's request for comments is intended to support and not duplicate those efforts. If commenters have already submitted comments in response to Notice 2017-28, those comments will be shared with and may be used by the Department's task force as it evaluates regulations.

    The Department advises that this notice and request for comments is issued for information and policy development purposes. Although the Department encourages responses to this notice, such comments do not bind the Department to taking any further actions related to the submission.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Brian Callanan, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12319 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2017-0019] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by the Department of Homeland Security System of Records AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of an updated and reissued system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by the Department of Homeland Security System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from additional provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0019, by one of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general and privacy questions please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202-343-1717), Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes a new Privacy Act exemption to an existing DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by DHS System of Records.” The DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by DHS System of Records covers the collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of records relating to the protection of property owned, occupied, or secured by DHS. The existing Privacy Act exemptions that became effective upon publication of the Final Rule at 74 FR 50901, continue to apply to this system of records. DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to add a new exemption from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.

    The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.

    DHS is claiming an additional exemption from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by DHS System of Records, under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Information in DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by DHS System of Records relates to official DHS law enforcement activities. This new exemption is needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the additional exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating ongoing operations; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS's ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties; and to safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.

    In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.

    A notice of an updated system of records for DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by DHS System of Records is also published in this issue of the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

    Freedom of information; Privacy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 5 U.S.C. 301.

    2. In appendix C to part 5, revise paragraph 38 to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act

    38. The DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned or Occupied by the Department of Homeland Security system of records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned or Occupied by the Department of Homeland Security system is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including: The enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned or Occupied by the Department of Homeland Security system contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); (f), (g)(1). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). When a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here. Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

    (a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.

    (b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.

    (c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

    (d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.

    (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.

    (f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to the existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.

    (g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.

    (h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.

    (i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12253 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0338; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-153-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the bushing holes on the engine mount rib might not conform to the engineering drawings and that certain inspections of the engine mount rib must be included in the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain airworthiness limitation items (ALIs). We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0338; 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:

    Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0338; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-153-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-09R1, dated June 29, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The aeroplane manufacturer has determined that the bushing holes on the engine mount rib may not conform to the engineering drawings. Non-conforming bushing holes could increase loading on adjacent fasteners, resulting in premature fatigue cracking of the engine mount rib.

    In addition, it was also discovered that the inspection requirements for the engine mount rib were not listed in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

    Failure of the engine mount rib could compromise the structural integrity of the engine mount and could lead to subsequent detachment of an engine.

    A new Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) task is introduced to ensure that any fatigue cracking of the engine mount rib is detected and corrected.

    The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the incorporation of a new TLMC AWL task [into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable].

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to remove model CL-600-1A11 (600) aeroplanes from the Applicability section of the [Canadian] AD since this model was incorrectly included in the original issue.

    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-2017-0338.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 129 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
  • Revision of maintenance or inspection program 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $10,965
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0338; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-153-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 31, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc., airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 3001 through 3066 inclusive.

    (2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive.

    (3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, having S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic inspections.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the bushing holes on the engine mount rib may not conform to the engineering drawings and that certain inspections of the engine mount rib must be included in the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of an engine mount rib. Failure of an engine mount rib could compromise the structural integrity of the engine mount and could lead to subsequent detachment of an engine.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate maintenance tasks, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Applicable information on tasks required by paragraph (g) of this AD can be found in Chapter 5 of Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) Manual PSP 601-5 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) airplanes), TLMC Manual PSP 601A-5 (for CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes), TLMC Manual CL-604 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive), and TLMC Manual CL-605 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 5701 and subsequent).

    (h) No Alternative Actions and/or Intervals

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

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-09R1, dated June 29, 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-2017-0338.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09846 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0833; FRL-9962-49-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Nonattainment New Source Review AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Texas for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP revision pertains to CAA 2008 ozone NAAQS requirements for vehicle inspection and maintenance and nonattainment new source review in the Dallas/Fort Worth ozone nonattainment area.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before July 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0833, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For additional information on how to submit comments see the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carl Young, (214) 665-6645, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant 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. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 1, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12211 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 409 and 488 [CMS-1686-N] RIN 0938-AT17 Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities: Revisions to Case-Mix Methodology; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking with comment; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document extends the comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking with comment entitled “Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities: Revisions to Case-mix Methodology” that appeared in the May 4, 2017 Federal Register (82 FR 20980) (the ANPRM). The comment period for the ANPRM, which would end on June 26, 2017, is extended until August 25, 2017.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the ANPRM (82 FR 20980) is extended to 5 p.m., eastern daylight time, on August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1686-ANPRM. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

    You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Within the search bar, enter the Regulation Identifier Number associated with this regulation, RIN 0938-AT17, and then click on the “Comment Now” box.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1686-ANPRM, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8016.

    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1686-ANPRM, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments before the close of the comment period to either of the following addresses:

    a. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

    b. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.

    Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Kane, (410) 786-0557.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the advance notice of proposed rulemaking with comment that appeared in the Federal Register on May 4, 2017 entitled, “Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities: Revisions to Case-mix Methodology” (82 FR 20980) (the ANPRM), we solicited public comments on potential options we may consider for revising certain aspects of the existing skilled nursing facility (SNF) prospective payment system (PPS) payment methodology to improve its accuracy, based on the results of our SNF Payment Models Research (SNF PMR) project. In particular, in the ANPRM, we sought comments on the possibility of proposing to replace the SNF PPS' existing case-mix classification model, the Resource Utilization Groups, Version 4 (RUG-IV), with a new model, the Resident Classification System, Version I (RCS-I). We also discussed options for how such a change could be implemented, as well as a number of other policy changes we may consider proposing to complement implementation of RCS-I.

    We have received an inquiry from professional associations and national industry organizations regarding the 60-day comment period for the ANPRM. These organizations stated that by providing all stakeholders additional time to review and comment upon the ANPRM, they will be able to conduct a more comprehensive review of the refinements we are considering to the SNF PPS payment methodology and provide more meaningful comments. In order to maximize the opportunity for the public to provide meaningful input to CMS, we believe that it is important to allow additional time for the public to prepare comments on the ANPRM. In addition, we believe that granting an extension to the public comment period in this instance would further our overall objective to obtain public input on the potential refinements to the SNF PPS we are considering. Therefore, we are extending the comment period for the ANPRM for an additional 60 days. This document announces the extension of the public comment period for the ANPRM until August 25, 2017.

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12324 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 RIN 0648-BF86 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 6 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 6 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce. We are requesting comments from the public on the amendment. Amendment 6 would establish management measures for the blueline tilefish fishery north of the Virginia/North Carolina border, including: Permitting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; trip limits for both the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery; and the process for setting specifications and annual catch limits. In addition, this action would set 2017 harvest limits.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0025, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0025, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Blueline Tilefish Amendment.”

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    Copies of Amendment 6, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We are soliciting public comments on Amendment 6 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. We will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would implement the amendment's management measures for additional public comment, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by August 14, 2017, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 6, including those postmarked or otherwise transmitted by the last day of the comment period.

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed this amendment to establish management measures for the blueline tilefish fishery north of the Virginia/North Carolina border. This proposed action would establish the management framework for this fishery including: Permitting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; trip limits for both the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery; and the process for setting specifications and annual catch limits. In addition, this action would set harvest quotas and commercial and recreational management measures for the 2017 fishing year. Additional details of the proposed measures are available in the amendment document and the proposed rule.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12307 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 113 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-912] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is amending its final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR Tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015, to correct a ministerial error. The amended final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled, “Amended Final Results.”

    DATES:

    Effective June 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-6430.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 13, 2017, the Department issued the final results of the administrative review of the 2014-2015 period of review.1 On April 14, 2017, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the final results.2 On April 24, 2017, the Department received a timely-filed ministerial error allegation from the petitioners 3 regarding the Department's margin calculation for Xugong, one of the mandatory respondents in the review.4 The Department also received a timely-filed ministerial error allegation from Xugong regarding the draft final liquidation instructions released with the Final Results. 5

    1See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 18733 (April 21, 2017) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    2 Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. (Xugong) was the only mandatory respondent for which the Department calculated a margin. See the Department's memorandum, “2014-2015 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd.,” dated April 12, 2017 (Xugong Final Analysis Memorandum).

    3 Titan Tire Corporation (Titan) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the USW) (collectively, the petitioners).

    4See Petitioners' Letter, “Petitioners' Ministerial Error Comments,” dated April 24, 2017.

    5See Xugong's letter, “Allegation of Ministerial Error for the Final Results of Administrative Review of New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 21, 2017 (Xugong Comments).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.80.1010, 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.70.00.10, 4011.70.00.50 4011.80.20.20, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, 4011.94.80.00, 8716.90.5056, 8716.90.5059, 4011.80.10.10, 4011.80.10.20, 4011.80.20.10, 4011.80.80.10, and 4011.80.80.20. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the Final Results.

    Ministerial Error

    Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” We analyzed the petitioners' ministerial error comments and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), that we made a ministerial error in our calculation of Xugong's margin for the Final Results by inadvertently using the incorrect sales figures as a denominator to devise the indirect sales expense ratio.6 We also made an error in the draft liquidation instructsions. For a detailed discussion of the Department's ministerial error determination, see Ministerial Error Memorandum.

    6See the Department's memorandum, “2014-2015 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Ministerial Error Allegation for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice (Ministerial Error Memorandum).

    In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are correcting this error in the calculation of Xugong's weighted-average dumping margin by using the proper denominator in the calculation of indirect sales expenses,7 and are, thus, amending the Final Results. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for Xugong is detailed below.

    7See Ministerial Error Memorandum; see also memorandum, “Analysis of the Amended Final Results Margin Calculation for Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd.,” dated concurrently with this notice (Xugong Amended Final Analysis Memo).

    Additionally, as a result of our revision to Xugong's margin, the Department has also revised the dumping margin for companies not individually examined in the review. As we explained in the Final Results, 8 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 respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the Department's usual practice has been to determine the dumping margin for companies not individually examined by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for the individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.9 Because Xugong's revised weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis and not based entirely on facts available, consistent with the Department's practice, we have assigned to companies not individually examined the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Xugong as the separate rate for this review. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for those companies are detailed below.

    8See Final Results, 82 FR at 18734.

    9See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).

    Amended Final Results

    As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd., Armour Rubber Company Ltd., or Xuzhou Hanbang Tyre Co., Ltd 33.14 Shiyan Desizheng Industry & Trade Co., Ltd 33.14 Qingdao Jinhaoyang International Co., Ltd 33.14 Sailun Jinyu Group Co., Ltd 33.14 Weifang Jintongda Tyre Co., Ltd 33.14 Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limite 33.14 Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd 33.14 Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd.10 33.14 Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd 33.14 Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd11 33.14

    The Department's determination in the Final Results that Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. (GTC) and Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd. (GTCIE),12 Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Leviathan International Trade Co., Ltd., are part of the PRC-wide entity remains unchanged.13

    10 The Department intended to grant Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. a separate rate in the Final Results. See Qihang's December 6, 2015 Separate Rate Certification. However, we incorrectly referred to this company as “Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co.,” in the Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. Accordingly, we have corrected the name of this company in these Amended Final Results.

    11 In the Final Results the Department granted Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. (TWS) a separate rate. However, we note that TWS is also known as Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) Co., Ltd. See TWS's November 12, 2105 Entry of Appearance and TWS's November 20, 2015 Separate Rate Certification.

    12 We incorrectly referred to the this company as “Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Corporation,” and have corrected the name in these Amended Final Results.

    13See Final Results, 82 FR at 18735.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed regarding these amended final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).14 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of administrative review.

    14See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14, 2012) (“NME Antidumping Proceedings”).

    For Xugong, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For customers or importers of Xugong for which we do not have entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales.15 For customers or importers of Xugong for which we received entered-value information, we have calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment rates based on importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates.16 Where an importer- or (customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.17 For the non-examined separate rate companies, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 33.14 percent. For those entities that are subject to this review that the Department has determined are part of the PRC-wide entity (i.e., GTC and GTCIE, Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Leviathan International Trade Co., Ltd.), we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate of 105.31 percent.18 Pursuant to a refinement in the Department's non-market economy (NME) practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate.19 In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

    15See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    16Id.

    17Id.

    18 The PRC-wide rate was determined in Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 20197 (April 15, 2015).

    19See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    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 April 21, 2017, the publication date of the Final Results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin identified in the “Amended Final Results” section of this notice, above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate (or exporter-producer chain rate) published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 105.31 percent; 20 and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    20See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 20197 (April 15, 2015).

    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 and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 are issuing and publishing these amended final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12303 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-937] Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) on February 8, 2017. The period of review (POR) for the administrative review is May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. The review was initiated with respect to twenty companies. After rescinding the review with respect to RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Import & Export Co., Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. (collectively, RZBC) at the Preliminary Results, seventeen companies remain under review. The Department finds that fifteen companies, including mandatory respondent Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. (Taihe), are part of the PRC-wide entity, and two companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. No parties commented. Our final results remain unchanged from the Preliminary Results.

    DATES:

    Effective June 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Krisha Hill, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 8, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 1 We invited interested parties to submit comments on the Preliminary Results, but we received no comments.

    1See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 9722 (February 8, 2017) (Preliminary Results).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order include the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate, which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS, respectively. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.2

    2See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 25703 (May 29, 2009) for a full description of the scope of the order.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined Niran (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Niran) and Niran Biochemical Limited (Niran Biochemical) had no reviewable transactions during the POR.3 We received no comments concerning our finding of no shipments by Niran and Niran Biochemical. In these final results of review, we continue to find that Niran and Niran Biochemical had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

    3See Preliminary Results, 82 FR at 9722.

    Separate Rates

    The Department considers fifteen companies listed in the Initiation Notice, including Taihe, to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Because Taihe did not respond to the Department's original questionnaire and did not provide separate rate information, Taihe has not established its eligibility for separate rate status. Furthermore, the remaining fourteen companies failed to provide separate rate applications or separate rate certifications necessary to establish their eligibility for a separate rate.4 Therefore, the Department determines that these fifteen companies, including Taihe, are not eligible for a separate rate and are part of the PRC-wide entity. Accordingly, the Department determined a rate consistent with the Department's current practice regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity.5

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 44260, 44265 (July 7, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    5See Preliminary Results and accompanying Decision Memorandum at 4. See also Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65970 (November 4, 2013). Under this practice, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change.

    Final Results of Review

    The Department determines that the following companies are part of the PRC-wide entity: (1) Taihe, (2) Anhui BBCA International Co., Ltd., (3) BCH Chemical International Limited, (4) China Chem Source (HK) Co., Ltd., (5) COFCO Biochemical AnHui Co., Ltd., (6) Jiangsu Guoxin Union Energy Co., Ltd., (7) Kaifeng Chemical Co., Ltd., (8) Qingdao Chongzhi International, (9) Qingdao Samin Chemical Co., Ltd., (10) Shanghai Fenhe International Co., Ltd., (11) Sunshine Biotech International Co., Ltd., (12) Tianjin Kaifeng Chemical Co., Ltd., (13) TTCA Co., Ltd., (14) Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd., and (15) Yixing-Union Biochemical Co., Ltd.

    Assessment

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.6 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity, including entries of subject merchandise from Taihe, at 156.87 percent (the PRC-wide rate).7 For Niran and Niran Biochemical, which the Department determined had no shipments during the POR, all suspended entries will be liquidated at the assessment rate for the PRC-wide entity.8

    6See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    7 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    8Id.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this AR 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 review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For previously investigated or reviewed exporters of merchandise from the PRC which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but which have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, 156.87 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter(s) of merchandise from the PRC that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the 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.

    We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d) and 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12301 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration EU-U.S. Privacy Shield; Invitation for Applications for Inclusion on the List of Arbitrators AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; invitation for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the European Commission have committed to implement an arbitration mechanism to provide European individuals with the ability to invoke binding arbitration to determine, for residual claims, whether an organization has violated its obligations under the Privacy Shield Framework. The DOC and the European Commission will work together to implement the arbitration mechanism, including by jointly developing a list of at least 20 arbitrators. Parties to a binding arbitration under this Privacy Shield mechanism may only select arbitrators from this list. This notice announces the opportunity to apply for inclusion on the list of arbitrators developed by the DOC and the European Commission.

    DATES:

    Applications should be received by July 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit applications to Nasreen Djouini at the U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at [email protected], or by fax at: 202-482-5522. More information on the arbitration mechanism may be found at https://www.privacyshield.gov/article?id=ANNEX-I-introduction.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nasreen Djouini, International Trade Administration, 202-482-6259 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework was designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the European Commission (Commission) to provide companies on both sides of the Atlantic with a mechanism to comply with data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the European Union to the United States in support of transatlantic commerce. On July 12, 2016, the Commission deemed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (Privacy Shield) adequate to enable data transfers under EU law, and on August 1, 2016, the DOC began accepting self-certifications from U.S. companies to join the program (81 FR 47752; July 22, 2016). For more information on the Privacy Shield, visit www.privacyshield.gov.

    As described in Annex I of the Privacy Shield, the DOC and the Commission have committed to implement an arbitration mechanism to provide European individuals with the ability to invoke binding arbitration to determine, for residual claims, whether an organization has violated its obligations under the Privacy Shield. Organizations voluntarily self-certify to the Privacy Shield and, upon certification, the commitments the organization has made to comply with the Privacy Shield become legally enforceable under U.S. law. Organizations that self-certify to the Privacy Shield commit to binding arbitration of residual claims if the individual chooses to exercise that option. Under the arbitration option, a Privacy Shield Panel (consisting of one or three arbitrators, as agreed by the parties) has the authority to impose individual-specific, non-monetary equitable relief (such as access, correction, deletion, or return of the individual's data in question) necessary to remedy the violation of the Privacy Shield only with respect to the individual. The parties will select the arbitrators from the list of arbitrators described below.

    The DOC and the European Commission seek to develop a list of at least 20 arbitrators. To be eligible for inclusion on the list, applicants must be admitted to practice law in the United States and have expertise in both U.S. privacy law and EU data protection law. Applicants shall not be subject to any instructions from, or be affiliated with, any Privacy Shield organization, or the U.S., EU, or any EU Member State or any other governmental authority, public authority or enforcement authority.

    Eligible individuals will be evaluated on the basis of independence, integrity, and expertise:

    Independence: • Freedom from bias and prejudice. Integrity: • Held in the highest regard by peers for integrity, fairness and good judgment. • Demonstrates high ethical standards and commitment necessary to be an arbitrator. Expertise: Required: • Admission to practice law in the United States. • Level of demonstrated expertise in U.S. privacy law and EU data protection law. Other expertise that may be considered includes any of the following: • Relevant educational degrees and professional licenses. • Relevant professional or academic experience or legal practice. • Relevant training or experience in arbitration or other forms of dispute resolution

    Evaluation of applications for inclusion on the list of arbitrators will be undertaken by the DOC and the Commission. Selected applicants will remain on the list for a period of 3 years, absent exceptional circumstances, change in eligibility, or for cause, renewable for one additional period of 3 years.

    The DOC is in the process of selecting an administrator for Privacy Shield arbitrations.1 Among other things, once selected, the Administrator will facilitate arbitrator fee arrangements, including the collection and timely payment of arbitrator fees and other expenses. Arbitrators are expected to commit their time and effort when included on the Privacy Shield List of Arbitrators and to take reasonable steps to minimize the costs or fees of the arbitration.

    1 For more information about the selection process and the role of the administrator, see https://www.privacyshield.gov/Arbitration-Fact-Sheet.

    Arbitrators will be subject to a code of conduct consistent with Annex I of the Privacy Shield Framework and generally accepted ethical standards for arbitrators. The DOC and the Commission agreed to adopt an existing, well-established set of U.S. arbitral procedures to govern the arbitral proceedings, subject to considerations identified in Annex I of the Privacy Shield Framework, including that materials submitted to arbitrators will be treated confidentially and will only be used in connection with the arbitration. For more information, please visit https://www.privacyshield.gov/article?id=G-Arbitration-Procedures where you can find information on the arbitration procedures.

    Applications

    Eligible individuals who wish to be considered for inclusion on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield List of Arbitrators are invited to submit applications. Applications must be typewritten and should be headed “Application for Inclusion on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield List of Arbitrators.” Applications should include the following information, and each section of the application should be numbered as indicated:

    —Name of applicant. —Address, telephone number, and email address. 1. Independence —Description of the applicant's affiliations with any Privacy Shield organization, or the U.S., EU, any EU Member State or any other governmental authority, public authority, or enforcement authority. 2. Integrity —On a separate page, the names, addresses, telephone, and fax numbers of three individuals willing to provide information concerning the applicant's qualifications for service, including the applicant's character, reputation, reliability, and judgment. —Description of the applicant's willingness and ability to make time commitments necessary to be an arbitrator. 3. Expertise —Demonstration of admittance to practice law in the United States. —Relevant academic degrees and professional training and licensing. —Current employment, including title, description of responsibility, name and address of employer, and name and telephone number of supervisor or other reference. —Employment history, including the dates and addresses of each prior position and a summary of responsibilities. —Description of expertise in U.S. privacy law and EU data protection law. —Description of training or experience in arbitration or other forms of dispute resolution, if applicable. —A list of publications, testimony, and speeches, if any, concerning U.S. privacy law and EU data protection law, with copies appended. Paperwork Reduction Act

    OMB has reviewed and approved this information collection on an emergency basis as of [X DATE]. The emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. ITA will submit a request for a 3-year approval through OMB's general PRA clearance process. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Written comments regarding the burden estimate for this data collection requirement, or any other aspect of this data collection, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the International Trade Administration via email at [email protected] or via fax at (202) 395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number).

    Public Disclosure

    Applications will be covered by the Department of Commerce's Privacy Act System of Records Notice 23. Submission of your application will be considered written consent to share your information with the European Commission to enable joint development of the list of arbitrators.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Alysha Taylor, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Services, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12370 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-469-815] Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From Spain: Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty order on finished carbon steel flanges from Spain.

    DATES:

    June 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Flessner at (202) 482-6312, AD/CVD Operations Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on April 17, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain.1 On June 7, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its final affirmative determination, pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain.2

    1See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 18108 (April 17, 2017) (Final Determination).

    2See Letter from the ITC regarding finished carbon steel flanges from Spain, dated June 7, 2017 (ITC Letter). See also Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain Investigation No. 731-TA-1333 (Final) USITC Publication 4696 (June 2017) (ITC Report).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is finished carbon steel flanges from Spain.3

    3 For a full description of the scope of this order, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Antidumping Duty Order

    As stated above, on June 7, 2017, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing finished carbon steel flanges is materially injured by reason of the LTFV imports of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this antidumping duty order. Because the ITC determined that imports of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    4See ITC Letter and ITC Report.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the NV of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 8, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination, 5 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication in the Federal Register of the ITC's final injury determination, as further described below.

    5See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 9723 (February 8, 2017) (Preliminary Determination).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.6 The “all-others” rates apply to all producers or exporters not specifically listed.

    6See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. We received no such request. In the underlying investigation, the Department published the Preliminary Determination on February 8, 2017. Therefore, the unextended period, beginning on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination, ended on June 8, 2017. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after June 8, 2017, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's injury determinations in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's determination in the Federal Register.

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for this antidumping order are as follows:

    Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average
  • dumping margins
  • (percent)
  • ULMA Forja, S.Coop 24.43 All Others 18.81
    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to finished carbon steel flanges from Spain pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    This order is published in accordance with section and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order covers finished carbon steel flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that they have undergone further processing after forging, including, but not limited to, beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces, drilling bolt holes, and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order. However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging (without any other further processing after forging) does not render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order.

    While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally manufactured to specification ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47 series A or series B, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are included in the scope regardless of pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in pounds of pressure, e.g., 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1500, 2500, etc.), type of face (e.g., flat face, full face, raised face, etc.), configuration (e.g., weld neck, slip on, socket weld, lap joint, threaded, etc.), wall thickness (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in inches), normalization, or whether or not heat treated. These carbon steel flanges either meet or exceed the requirements of the ASTM A105, ASTM A694, ASTM A181, ASTM A350 and ASTM A707 standards (or comparable foreign specifications). The scope includes any flanges produced to the above-referenced ASTM standards as currently stated or as may be amended. The term “carbon steel” under this scope is steel in which:

    (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements:

    (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 0.87 percent of aluminum;

    (ii) 0.0105 percent of boron;

    (iii) 10.10 percent of chromium;

    (iv) 1.55 percent of columbium;

    (v) 3.10 percent of copper;

    (vi) 0.38 percent of lead;

    (vii) 3.04 percent of manganese;

    (viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum;

    (ix) 20.15 percent of nickel;

    (x) 1.55 percent of niobium;

    (xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen;

    (xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus;

    (xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon;

    (xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur;

    (xv) 1.05 percent of titanium;

    (xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten;

    (xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or

    (xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium.

    Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under subheadings 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-12404 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the 21st administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) on December 9, 2016. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2014, and October 31, 2015. The mandatory respondents in this review are: Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. (Harmoni) and Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. (QTF).

    Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made no changes to the margin calculated for voluntary respondent, Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda). As discussed below, the Department continues to find that QTF withheld requested information, significantly impeded the administrative review, and did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, we continue to use adverse facts available. However, in a change from the Preliminary Results, we find that QTF is not eligible for separate rate status, and thus, is a part of the PRC-wide entity. The Department is also rescinding the review with respect to Harmoni and Jinxiang Jinma Fruits Vegetables Products Co., Ltd. (Jinxiang Jinma), as discussed below.

    These determinations and the final dumping margins are discussed below in the “Final Results” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective June 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathryn Wallace or Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-6251 or 202-482-4956, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department published the Preliminary Results on December 9, 2016, in which it preliminarily determined that QTF and Harmoni each failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. As a result, the Department preliminarily found that Harmoni had not rebutted the presumption that it is part of the PRC-wide entity, and we preliminarily based QTF's dumping margin on adverse facts available. The Department also preliminarily found that Xinboda sold merchandise to the United States at less than normal value. Finally, we preliminarily granted a separate rate to five companies which demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status, but were not selected for individual examination.1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. The petitioners,2 the New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition (NMGGC),3 Xinboda, QTF, Harmoni, and Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. (Hejia) timely filed case briefs, pursuant to our regulations.4 Additionally, the petitioners, the NMGGC, Xinboda, and Harmoni timely filed rebuttal briefs.5 The deadline for the final results of this review was April 10, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the Department extended the deadline in this proceeding by 60 days to June 7, 2017.6

    1See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 89050 (December 9, 2016) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (PDM).

    2 The petitioners are the Fresh Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) and its individual members: Christopher Ranch LLC, The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.

    3 The NMGGC, at the time of initiation, consisted of Avrum Katz of Boxcar Farm and Stanley Crawford of El Bosque Farm.

    4See NMGGC's Case Brief, “Case Brief Filed on Behalf of the New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition and El Bosque Farm in the 21st Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China” (March 24, 2017); see also Xinboda's First Case Brief, “Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China—Case Brief” (March 24, 2017); see also QTF's Case Brief, “Case Brief of Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd.,” (March 24, 2017); see also Petitioners' First Case Brief, “Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners' Case Brief,” (March 24, 2017); see also Harmoni's Case Brief, “Harmoni Administrative Case Brief: 21st Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (A-570-831),” (March 24, 2017); see also Xinboda's Second Case Brief, “Case Brief of Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co. Ltd. (“Xinboda”) Re: Data Issues” (April 11, 2017); see also Hejia's Case Brief, “Case Brief Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.” (April 11, 2017); see also Petitioners' Second Case Brief, “Petitioners' Case Brief Concerning Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd” (April 11, 2017).

    5See NMGGC's Rebuttal Brief, “Rebuttal Brief—Filed on Behalf of the New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition and El Bosque Farm in the 21st Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China,” (March 31, 2017); see also Xinboda's First Rebuttal Brief, “Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China—Letter Rebuttal Brief” (March 31, 2017); see also Petitioners' First Rebuttal Brief, “Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief” (March 31, 2017); see also Harmoni's Rebuttal Brief, “Harmoni's Rebuttal Brief: 21st Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (A-570-831)” (March 31, 2017); see also Xinboda Second Rebuttal Brief), “Rebuttal Brief of Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Xinboda”) Re: Data Issues” (April 18, 2017); see also Petitioners' Second Rebuttal Brief, “Petitioners' Second Case Rebuttal Brief” (April 18, 2017).

    6See Memorandum, “Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China—21st Administrative Review (2014-2015): Extension of Deadline for the Final Results of the Review” (March 15, 2017).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves. Fresh garlic that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, 2005.99.9700. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see “Scope of the Order” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.7

    7See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; 2014-2015,” dated concurrently with this notice (IDM).

    Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    As discussed in the IDM,8 the Department is rescinding the review with respect to Harmoni and Jinxiang Jinma based on the Department's determination that the NMGGC's request for review was not credible.

    8See IDM at Comment 1.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review in the IDM. Appendix I provides a list of the issues which parties raised. The IDM is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as 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 CRU. In addition, a complete version of the IDM can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed IDM and the electronic versions of the IDM are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the IDM, including the application of facts available with an adverse inference, we revised our decision regarding QTF's eligibility for a separate rate, and further collapsed the QTF-entity to include Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. and Huamei Consulting.9 For the final results of this review, the Department has also updated the list of companies subject to this review that are found to be part of the PRC-wide entity. For a list of all issues addressed in these final results, please refer to Appendix I accompanying this notice.

    9 As discussed in the IDM, the QTF-entity includes Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. (QTF); Qingdao Tianhefeng Foods Co., Ltd. (QTHF); Qingdao Beixing Trading Co., Ltd. (QBT); Qingdao Lianghe International Trade Co., Ltd. (Lianghe); and Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. (QXF); Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. (Golden Bird); Huamei Consulting (collectively, the QTF-entity).

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined that the companies listed in Appendix III timely filed “no shipment” certifications and did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, we completed the review with respect to the companies listed in Appendix III. For the companies listed in Appendix III, CBP provided no evidence to contradict the claims of these companies of no shipments. Based on this information, we continue to determine that the companies listed in Appendix III did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. See Appendix III.

    As discussed in the IDM, in the Preliminary Results, CBP indicated that although Shenzhen Yuting Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Yuting) had certified no shipments, in fact, it had shipments during the POR.10 Following the Preliminary Results, Yuting sufficiently clarified the discrepancy with the Department.11 As noted in the “Assessment Rates” section below, the Department intends to issue appropriate instructions to CBP for the companies listed below based on the final results of this review.

    10See IDM at “Final Determination of No Shipments.”

    11 As noted in the IDM, in the preliminary results, the Department considered Yuting to be a part of the PRC-wide entity because CBP data indicated that it did have a shipment during the POR. However, based on Yuting's clarification, the Department finds that Yuting is no longer considered to be a part of the PRC-wide entity, and accordingly, we intend to liquidate the entry at the rate established in the prior administrative review.

    PRC-Wide Entity

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department's policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.12 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate (i.e., $4.71/kg) is not subject to change. Aside from the no shipment companies discussed above, the Department considers all other companies for which a review was requested, and which did not qualify for a separate rate, to be part of the PRC-wide entity. See Appendix II.

    12See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that non-selected companies Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd., Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd., Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd., and Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd., demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.13 We continue to find that those five companies are eligible for a separate rate. As discussed in the IDM, the Department granted QTF separate status in the Preliminary Results. However, we now find that the QTF-entity did not rebut the presumption of government control.14 As such, it did not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate. QTF has commented on our preliminary decision, and we have addressed its comments in the IDM.

    13See Preliminary Results at Appendix II.

    14See IDM at 6 and Comment 4.

    In the Preliminary Results, we assigned the non-selected separate rate companies the dumping margin calculated for Xinboda. No parties commented on this. We continue to use Xinboda's margin as the margin for the non-selected separate rate companies in these final results.

    Final Results of Administrative Review

    The weighted-average dumping margins for the administrative review are as follows:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margins
  • (dollars per
  • kilogram)
  • Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd $2.27 Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd 2.27 Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd 2.27 Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd 2.27 Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd. 2.27 Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd 2.27 PRC-Wide Rate 4.71
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).15 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.16 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.17 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.18 We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate.

    15See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    16Id.

    17Id.

    18See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide entity rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide entity rate.19

    19See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    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, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $4.71 per kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Whether the Department Should Rescind the Review of Harmoni and Jinxiang Jinma 2. Whether Hejia is Eligible for a Separate Rate 3. Yuting's No Shipment Status 4. Whether the Application of AFA to QTF-Entity was Warranted, and Whether the QTF-Entity is Eligible for a Separate Rate 5. The Department's Application of the $4.71 per kilogram AFA Rate 6. Whether the Department Properly Calculated Xinboda's EP 7. Whether the Department Should Rely on Total AFA in Assigning a Dumping Margin to Xinboda 8. Whether the Department Correctly Selected Romania as the Surrogate Country and Whether Mexico has the Highest Quality of Data Available Appendix II—List of Companies Under Review Subject to the PRC-Wide Rate 1. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. 2. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. 3. The QTF-entity 4. Shandong Zhifeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 5. Zhong Lian Farming Product (Qingdao) Co., Ltd. Appendix III—Companies That Have Certified No Shipments 1. Jining Yifa Garlic Produce Co., Ltd. 2. Jining Shengtai Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd. 3. Jining Shunchang Import & Export Co., Ltd. 4. Jinxiang Guihua Food Co., Ltd. 5. Jinxiang Richfar Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd. 6. Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export Co., Ltd. 7. Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading Co., Ltd. 8. Shandong Chenhe International Trading Co., Ltd. 9. Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd. 10. Yantai Jinyan Trading, Inc.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12302 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-844] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 9, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico (rebar). The period of review (POR) is April 24, 2014, through October 31, 2015. The review covers two mandatory respondents, Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. (Deacero) and Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. (Grupo Simec). For these final results, we find that Deacero made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value, while Grupo Simec did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. See the “Final Results of the Review” section below.

    DATES:

    Effective June 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Moore (for Deacero) or Patricia Tran (for Grupo Simec), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3692 or (202) 482-1503, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 9, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 1 On January 31, 2017, the petitioner,2 Grupo Simec, and Deacero timely submitted their case briefs.3 On January 9, 2017, the petitioner and Grupo Simec submitted requests for a hearing.4 On February 7, 2017, the petitioner, Grupo Simec, and Deacero submitted their rebuttal briefs.5 On February 8, 2017, Grupo Simec withdrew its request for a hearing.6 Both Grupo Simec and the petitioner agreed to meetings with the Department in lieu of a hearing. Department officials met with Grupo Simec and the petitioner on May 3, and 10, 2017, respectively.7 On May 4, 2017, the Department postponed the final results until June 7, 2017.8

    1See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 89053 (December 9, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    2 The petitioner is the Rebar Trade Action Coalition, whose individual members are Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Commercial Metals Company, Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., and Byer Steel Corporation.

    3See the petitioner's letter titled, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Case Brief,” dated January 31, 2017; see also Deacero's letter titled, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Case Brief,” dated January 31, 2017; Grupo Simec's letter titled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Case Brief,” dated January 31, 2017.

    4See letter from the petitioner titled, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Request for Hearing,” dated January 9, 2017. See also letter from Grupo Simec titled, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Hearing Request,” dated January 9, 2017.

    5See the petitioner's letter titled, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Rebuttal Brief,” dated February 7, 2017; see also Deacero's letter titled, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Rebuttal Brief,” dated February 7, 2017; Grupo Simec's letter titled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Rebuttal Case Brief,” dated February 7, 2017.

    6See letter from Grupo Simec titled “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Withdrawal of Hearing Request,” dated February 8, 2017.

    7See Memorandum to the File from Stephanie Moore, Case Analyst titled, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Meeting with Respondents,” dated May 10, 2017. See also Memorandum to the File from Stephanie Moore, Case Analyst titled, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Meeting with Petitioner,” dated May 16, 2017.

    8See Memorandum titled “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated May 4, 2017.

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.9

    9 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico; 2014-2015,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and 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 in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made company-specific changes to Deacero's final margin calculation with respect to the SAS Comparison Market for affiliated purchases of electricity, and we revised the general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio. However, despite these changes, the weighted-average dumping margin for Deacero has not changed.

    For Grupo Simec, we have changed the final margin calculation with respect to the SAS Comparison Market for fixed overhead costs, G&A, and financial expense ratio. However, despite these changes, the weighted-average dumping margin for Grupo Simec has not changed.

    Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period April 24, 2014, through October 31, 2015:

    Producer and/or exporter Weighted-average dumping margins (percent) Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V 0.56 Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V10 0.00 Disclosure

    10 Pursuant to section 771(33)(B), (F) and (G) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department found Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. affiliated with the following producers: Orge S.A. de C.V.; Compania Siderurgica del Pacifico S.A. de C.V.; Grupo Chant S.A.P.I. de C.V.; RRLC S.A.P.I. de C.V.; Siderurgica del Occidente y Pacifico S.A. de C.V.; Simec International 6 S.A. de C.V.; Simec International 7 S.A. de C.V.; and Simec International 9 S.A. de C.V. The Department collapsed and treated as a single entity Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. and these producers for purposes of this administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). The collective entity is Grupo Simec.

    We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.11 For Deacero, because its weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the Department has calculated importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates. We calculated importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total entered value associated with those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review where an importer-specific assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis. Because we calculated a zero margin for Grupo Simec in the final results of this review, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.12

    11 In these final results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method 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) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    12See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103 (February 14, 2012).

    We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 41 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    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 subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 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 respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(I), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative 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; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 20.58 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation.13 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967 (September 15, 2014).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final 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 the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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.

    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) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Comments III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Analysis of Comments Comments Concerning Deacero Comment 1: Whether to Apply Total Adverse Inferences to Deacero Comment 2: Treatment of Scrap Values Reported by Deacero Comment 3: Treatment of Non-prime Merchandise Reported by Deacero Comment 4: Treatment of Affiliated Electricity Purchases Reported by Deacero Comment 5: Treatment of G&A and Interest Expense Ratios Reported by Deacero Comment 6: Treatment of Reconciling Items Reported by Deacero Comment 7: Treatment of Rebar Costs Relating to Non-Subject Merchandise Comment 8: Inventory Adjustments Comment 9: Method Used to Calculate Deacero's Final Margin Comment 10: Sales Passing the Cohen's d Test Based on Time Comment Concerning Grupo Simec Comment 11: Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available to Grupo Simec Comment 12: Whether to Adjust Grupo Simec's Reported Costs Comment 13: Whether to Revise the Department's Collapsing Analysis Comment 14: Clerical Errors VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-12304 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration District Export Council Nomination Opportunity AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of opportunity for appointment to serve as a District Export Council member.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is currently seeking nominations of individuals for consideration for appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to serve as members of one of the 60 District Export Councils (DECs) nationwide. DECs are closely affiliated with the U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS), and play a key role in the planning and coordination of export activities in their communities.

    DATES:

    Nominations for individuals to a DEC must be received by the local USEAC Director by 5:00 p.m. local time on July 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please contact the Director of your local USEAC for more information on DECs and the nomination process. You may identify your local USEAC by entering your zip code online at http://export.gov/usoffices/index.asp. For general program information, contact Laura Barmby, National DEC Liaison, US&FCS, at (202) 482-2675.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    District Export Councils support the mission of US&FCS by facilitating the development of an effective local export assistance network, supporting the expansion of export opportunities for local U.S. companies, serving as a communication link between the business community and US&FCS, and assisting in coordinating the activities of trade assistance partners to leverage available resources. Individuals appointed to a DEC become part of a select corps of trade experts dedicated to providing international trade leadership and guidance to the local business community and assistance to the Department of Commerce on export development issues.

    Nomination Process: Each DEC has a maximum membership of 35. Approximately half of the positions are open on each DEC for the four-year term that begins on January 1, 2018, and runs through December 31, 2021. All potential nominees must complete an online nomination form and consent to sharing of the information on that form with the DEC Executive Committee for its consideration, and consent, if appointed, to sharing of their contact information with other partners.

    Eligibility and Appointment Criteria: Appointment is based upon an individual's international trade leadership in the local community, ability to influence the local environment for exporting, knowledge of day-to-day international operations, interest in export development, and willingness and ability to devote time to DEC activities. Members must be employed as exporters or export service providers or in a profession which supports U.S. export promotion efforts. Members include exporters, export service providers and others whose profession supports U.S. export promotion efforts. DEC member appointments are made without regard to political affiliation. DEC membership is open to U.S. citizens and permanent residents of the United States. As representatives of the local exporting community, DEC Members must reside in, or conduct the majority of their work in, the territory that the DEC covers. DEC membership is not open to federal government employees, or individuals representing foreign governments, including individuals registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

    Selection Process: Nominations of individuals who have applied for DEC membership will be forwarded to the local USEAC Director for the respective DEC for that Director's consideration. The local USEAC Director ensures that all nominees meet the membership criteria outlined below. The local USEAC Director then, in consultation with the local DEC Executive Committee, evaluates all nominations to determine their interest, commitment, and qualifications. In reviewing nominations, the local USEAC Director strives to ensure a balance among exporters from a manufacturing or service industry and export service providers. A fair representation should be considered from companies and organizations that support exporters, representatives of local and state government, and trade organizations and associations. Membership should reflect the diversity of the local business community, encompass a broad range of businesses and industry sectors, and be distributed geographically across the DEC service area.

    For current DEC members seeking reappointment, the local USEAC Director, in consultation with the DEC Executive Committee, also carefully considers the nominee's activity level during the previous term and demonstrated ability to work cooperatively and effectively with other DEC members and US&FCS staff. As appointees of the Secretary of Commerce in high-profile positions, though volunteers, DEC Members are expected to actively participate in the DEC and support the work of local US&FCS offices. Those that do not support the work of the office or do not actively participate in DEC activities will not be considered for re-nomination.

    The Executive Secretary determines which nominees to forward to the US&FCS Office of U.S. Operations for further consideration for recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the local DEC Executive Committee. A candidate's background and character are pertinent to determining suitability and eligibility for DEC membership. Since DEC appointments are made by the Secretary, the Department must make a suitability determination for all DEC nominees. After completion of a vetting process, the Secretary selects nominees for appointment to local DECs. DEC members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1512, 15 U.S.C. 4721.

    Dated: June 6, 2017. Laura Barmby, District Export Council Program Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12250 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF475 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application from the Coonamessett Farm Foundation to conduct a scallop survey contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration.

    Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notice intended to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line “CFF NGOM Survey EFP.”

    Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on CFF NGOM Survey EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coonamessett Farm Foundation submitted a complete application on May 23, 2017, to conduct an optical and dredge survey in the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) Scallop Management Area. The project titled “An Optical Assessment of Sea Scallop Abundance and Distribution in Select Areas of the Northern Gulf of Maine Scallop Management Area” would be funded through the Scallop Research Set-Aside Program. The primary survey instrument would be the HabCam imaging system, consisting of a camera that continuously takes photos and a side scanning sonar, that would be towed approximately 2.5 meters above the ocean floor. A scallop survey dredge would also be deployed to enable collection of biological information. The vessel would be exempt from the Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b); NGOM management program requirements at § 648.62; crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); dredge gear restrictions at § 648.51(b); and observer program requirements at § 648.11(g). The vessel would also be temporarily exempt from possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subparts B and D through O, for biological sampling purposes only. These exemptions would support an abundance survey of the NGOM Scallop Management Area.

    The primary survey instrument will be the HabCam imaging system, but a scallop survey dredge would be deployed to enable collection of biological information. One vessel would conduct the survey in early July 2017 over the course of four days-at-sea. Researchers would conduct 3 dredge tows per day for a maximum of 12 tows using the NMFS survey dredge. The survey dredge is 8 feet (2.4 m) in width equipped with 2-inch (5.1-cm) rings, 4-inch (10.2-cm) diamond twine top, and a 1.5-inch (3.8-cm) diamond mesh liner. All tows would be conducted at speeds between 4.8 to 5.1 knots (2.5 to 2.6 m/s) for 10-15 minutes. The dredge tow locations would be determined during the optical survey using the HabCam system based on scallop abundance. This survey would provide scallop biomass estimates that would support scallop resource management in the NGOM Management Area. The survey will occur in parts of Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's Ledge that are open to commercial scallop fishing. No dredge tows will occur in a habitat closed area.

    In addition to collecting Habcam image data, scientific personnel will record detailed catch information on scallops, finfish, and invertebrates from dredge tows. No fish or scallops will be retained for commercial purposes, but frozen samples of scallop meats may be retained. All bycatch would be returned to the sea as soon as practicable following data collection. These exemptions will allow CFF to conduct experimental dredge towing without being charged DAS, as well as deploy gear that is not consistent with current scallop regulations. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel. Exemption from possession limit and minimum sizes would ensure the vessel is not in conflict with possession regulations while collecting catch data. The project would also be exempt from the sea scallop observer program requirements because activities conducted on the trip are not consistent with normal fishing operations.

    If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12317 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF476 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 51 pre-assessment webinar for Gulf of Mexico gray snapper.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 51 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico gray snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 51 pre-assessment webinar will be held June 27, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion during the post-Data Workshop webinar are as follows:

    1. Panelists will present finalized data for review and recommendation.

    2. Panelists will begin discussing the modeling framework and initial model recommendations

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to each workshop.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12256 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF477 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Atlantic Bluefish Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting, jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Atlantic Bluefish Advisory Panel.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on the proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will be posted at the MAFMC's Web site: www.mafmc.org.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their Web site at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is for the Advisory Panels to create a fishery performance report (FPR). The intent of this report is to facilitate a venue for structured input from the Advisory Panels for the Atlantic Bluefish specifications process. The FPR will be used by the MAFMC's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Atlantic Bluefish Monitoring Committee (MC), when reviewing (at future meetings in July), and if necessary revising, the current measures designed to achieve the recommended Atlantic Bluefish catch and landings limits for 2018. In addition, the MAFMC and ASMFC will consider input from the Advisory Panels in August when reviewing these specifications.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12255 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF478 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council's) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel (AP) will hold a public meeting, jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 28, 2017, from 10 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Double Tree by Hilton Baltimore -BWI Airport, 890 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 859-8400.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass AP will meet jointly with the ASMFC's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass AP. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss recent performance of the commercial and recreational fisheries for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, and develop annual Fishery Performance Reports for these fisheries. The Council and the ASMFC will consider the Fishery Performance Reports later in 2017 when reviewing previously implemented 2018 fishery specifications (i.e., catch and landings limits and management measures) for all three species, and possibly recommending 2019 specifications for scup. The AP will also discuss commercial summer flounder management alternatives under development for the Council and ASMFC's ongoing Comprehensive Summer Flounder Amendment.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12254 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF320 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibited Species Donation Program AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; selection of an authorized distributor.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the renewal of two prohibited species donation (PSD) permits to SeaShare, authorizing this organization to distribute Pacific salmon and Pacific halibut to economically disadvantaged individuals under the PSD program. Salmon and halibut are caught incidentally during directed fishing for groundfish with trawl gear off Alaska. This action is necessary to comply with provisions of the PSD program and is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

    DATES:

    The permits are effective from June 14, 2017 through June 15, 2020.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the PSD permits for salmon and halibut prepared for this action may be obtained from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) is managed by NMFS in accordance with the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). These fishery management plans (FMPs) were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing the Alaska groundfish fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. Fishing for halibut in waters in and off Alaska is governed by the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) promulgates regulations pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce. After approval by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, the IPHC regulations are published in the Federal Register as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.

    Retention of incidentally caught prohibited species is prohibited in the groundfish fisheries except for salmon and halibut for the purposes of the PSD program. Amendments 26 and 29 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, authorize a salmon donation program and were approved by NMFS on July 10, 1996; a final rule implementing this program was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 1996 (61 FR 38358). The salmon donation program was expanded to include halibut as part of the PSD program under Amendments 50 and 50 to the FMPs that were approved by NMFS on May 6, 1998. A final rule implementing Amendments 50 and 50 was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 1998 (63 FR 32144). Although that final rule contained a sunset provision for the halibut PSD program of December 31, 2000, the halibut PSD program was permanently extended under a final rule published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78119). A full description of, and background information on, the PSD program may be found in the preambles to the proposed rules for Amendments 26 and 29, and Amendments 50 and 50 (61 FR 24750, May 16, 1996, and 63 FR 10583, March 4, 1998, respectively).

    Section 679.26 authorizes the voluntary distribution of salmon and halibut taken incidentally in the groundfish trawl fisheries off Alaska to economically disadvantaged individuals by tax-exempt organizations through an authorized distributor. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), may select one or more tax-exempt organizations to be authorized distributors, as defined by § 679.2, based on the information submitted by applicants under § 679.26. After review of qualified applicants, NMFS must announce the selection of each authorized distributor in the Federal Register and issue one or more PSD permits to each selected distributor.

    Renewal of Permits to SeaShare

    Currently, SeaShare, a tax-exempt organization founded to help the seafood industry donate to U.S. hunger relief efforts, is the sole authorized distributor of salmon and halibut taken incidentally in the groundfish trawl fisheries off Alaska. SeaShare's current salmon and halibut PSD permits became effective June 11, 2014, and authorize SeaShare to participate in the PSD program through June 12, 2017 (79 FR 33526, June 11, 2014).

    On April 17, 2017, the Regional Administrator received an application from SeaShare to renew its salmon and halibut PSD permits. The Regional Administrator reviewed the application and determined that it is complete and that SeaShare continues to meet the requirements for an authorized distributor under the PSD program. As required by § 679.26(b)(2), the Regional Administrator based his selection on the following criteria:

    1. The number and qualifications of applicants for PSD permits. SeaShare is the only applicant for PSD permits at this time. NMFS has previously approved applications submitted by SeaShare. As of the date of this notice, no other applications have been approved by NMFS. SeaShare has been coordinating the distribution of salmon taken incidentally in trawl fisheries since 1993, and of halibut taken incidentally in trawl fisheries since 1998, under exempted fishing permits from 1993 to 1996 and under the PSD program since 1996. SeaShare employs independent seafood quality control experts to ensure product quality is maintained by cold storage facilities and common carriers servicing the areas where salmon and halibut donations would take place.

    2. The number of harvesters and the quantity of fish that applicants can effectively administer. Current participants in the salmon donation program administered by SeaShare include 13 shoreside processors and 138 catcher vessels delivering to shoreside processors; 35 catcher/processors; and 3 motherships and 15 catcher vessels delivering to motherships, with all 15 vessels delivering to both shoreside and motherships. Thirteen shoreside processors and 138 catcher vessels participate in the halibut donation program administered by SeaShare. Two reprocessing plants that generate steaked salmon and halibut participate in the PSD program. SeaShare has the capacity to receive and distribute salmon and halibut from up to 60 processors and the associated catcher vessels. Therefore, it is anticipated that SeaShare has more than adequate capacity for any foreseeable expansion of donations.

    In 2011, participation in the PSD program expanded beyond the BSAI to include GOA processors and vessels. Table 1 shows the total pounds of headed-and-gutted and steaked salmon and halibut donated to food bank organizations from 2014 through 2016. NMFS does not have information to convert accurately the net weights of salmon and halibut to numbers of salmon and numbers of halibut.

    Table 1—Headed-and-Gutted (H&G) and Steaked Salmon and Halibut Donated to Food Bank Organizations [pounds] 2014 2015 2016 Total Salmon H&G 0 0 536 536 Salmon steaked 398,587 449,865 436,700 1,285,152 Halibut H&G 13,050 26,605 13,144 52,799 Halibut steaked 45,988 21,680 37,240 104,908 Total Inventory 457,625 498,150 487,620 1,443,395

    3. The anticipated level of salmon and halibut incidental catch based on salmon and halibut incidental catch from previous years. The incidental catch of salmon and incidental catch mortality of halibut in the GOA and BSAI trawl fisheries are shown in Table 2.

    Table 2—Incidental Catch of Salmon and Incidental Catch Mortality of Halibut in the GOA and BSAI Trawl Fisheries [in number of fish or metric tons] Area fishery 2014 2015 2016 BSAI Trawl Chinook Salmon Incidental Catch  1 18,096 fish 25,253 fish 32,560 fish. BSAI Trawl Other Salmon Incidental Catch 2 223,853 fish 243,343 fish 347,138 fish. GOA Trawl Chinook Salmon Incidental Catch 15,702 fish 3 18,946 fish 4 21,896 fish. 5 GOA Trawl Other Salmon Incidental Catch 2,319 fish 6 1,319 fish 7 2,775 fish. 8 BSAI Trawl Halibut Mortality 2,824 mt 9 1,889 mt 10 1,982 mt. 11 GOA Trawl Halibut Mortality 1,392 mt 12 1,413 mt 13 1,336 mt. 14 mt = metric tons

    Halibut incidental catch amounts are constrained by an annual prohibited species catch (PSC) limit in the BSAI and GOA. Future halibut incidental catch levels likely will be similar to those experienced from 2014 through 2016 with some reductions possible relative to 2014 and 2015 incidental catch levels. Amendment 111 to the BSAI FMP reduced BSAI halibut PSC limits in 2016 and incidental catch decreased beginning that year (81 FR 24714, April 27, 2016).

    1https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/chinook_salmon_mortality2017.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    2https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/chum_salmon_mortality2017.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    3https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2014.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    4https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2015.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    5https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2016.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    6https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2014.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    7https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2015.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    8https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2016.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    9https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_bsai_with_cdq2014.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    10https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_bsai_with_cdq2015.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    11https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_bsai_with_cdq2016.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    12https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2014.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    13https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2015.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    14https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/reports/car120_psc_goa2016.pdf accessed on 04/17/17.

    Chinook salmon PSC limits are established for the Bering Sea and central and western GOA pollock fisheries that, when attained, result in the closure of pollock fishing. The Chinook salmon PSC limits for the Bering Sea pollock fisheries were originally established by Amendment 91 to the BSAI FMP (75 FR 53026, August 30, 2010) and established for the central and western GOA pollock fisheries by Amendment 93 to the GOA FMP (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012). In 2016, Amendment 110 to the BSAI FMP was implemented to improve the management of Chinook and chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery by creating a comprehensive salmon bycatch avoidance program (81 FR 37534, June 10, 2016). In 2015, Amendment 97 to the GOA FMP established annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for the groundfish trawl fisheries, except for pollock trawl fisheries, in the Western and Central GOA (79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014). While salmon incidental catch amounts tend to vary between years, making it difficult to accurately predict future incidental take amounts, the total, or maximum, amount of annual Chinook salmon incidental catch in the Bering Sea and GOA pollock fisheries is constrained by the PSC limits.

    4. The number of vessels and processors participating in the PSD program. For the 2017 permit renewal, shoreside processors will decrease slightly from 15 to 13, and vessels delivering to shoreside processors will increase slightly from 137 to 138. Catcher/processors participating in the PSD program for salmon will decrease slightly from 36 to 35 under the 2017 permit renewal. Catcher vessels delivering to motherships will remain at 15 vessels.

    NMFS issues PSD permits to SeaShare for a 3-year period unless the permits are suspended or revoked under § 679.26. The permits may not be transferred; however, they may be renewed following the application procedures in § 679.26.

    If the authorized distributor modifies the list of participants in the PSD program or delivery locations, the authorized distributor must submit a modified list of participants or a modified list of delivery locations to the Regional Administrator.

    These permits may be suspended, modified, or revoked under 15 CFR part 904 for violation of § 679.26 or other regulations in 50 CFR part 679.

    Classification

    This action is taken under § 679.26.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12313 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF246 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Chevron Richmond Refinery Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project in San Francisco Bay, California AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Chevron to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during construction activities associated with the Richmond Refinery Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project (WMEP) in San Francisco Bay, California.

    DATES:

    The Authorization is in effect for one year beginning January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Availability

    An electronic copy of Chevron's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

    The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    Summary of Request

    On July 21, 2014, NMFS received a request from Chevron for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal associated with the WMEP in San Francisco Bay, California. The project was delayed due to funding constraints. Chevron submitted a revised version of the request on November 16, 2016, which was deemed adequate and complete on January 12, 2017. Chevron will undertake the WMEP in order to comply with current Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS) requirements and to improve safety and efficiency at the Long Wharf. Construction would start in 2018, and be complete by the fourth quarter of 2022. Therefore, Chevron expects to request additional IHAs in association with this multi-year project. The effective dates for this first IHA would be from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving during pile removal and installation during the four-year construction period is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in Level B (behavioral) harassment of marine mammals. However, only impact driving will occur during 2018 and will be covered under the issued IHA. Species expected to occur in the area and for which take is authorized include California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina).

    Description of the Specified Activity Overview

    Chevron's Richmond Refinery Long Wharf (Long Wharf) is the largest marine oil terminal in California. Its operations are regulated primarily by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) through a State Lands lease, Article 5 of CSLC regulations, and MOTEMS (California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 31F). The Long Wharf has existed in its current location since the early 1900s (Figure 1-1 in Application). The Berth 2 fender system (timber pile and whaler) was designed and installed in 1940. Marine loading arms, gangways, and fender systems at Berths 1, 3 and 4 were installed in 1972. The Berth 4 fender panels were replaced in 2011 and the Berth 1 fender panels were replaced in 2012. The existing configuration of these systems have limitations to accepting more modern, fuel efficient vessels with shorter, parallel mid-body hulls and in some cases do not meet current MOTEMS requirements.

    The purpose of the WMEP is to comply with current MOTEMS requirements and to improve safety and efficiency at the Long Wharf. To meet MOTEMS requirements, the fendering system at Berth 2 is being updated and the Berth 4 loading platform will be seismically retrofitted to stiffen the structure and reduce movement of the Long Wharf in the event of a level 1 or 2 earthquake. Safety will be improved by replacing gangways and fire monitors. Efficiency at the Long Wharf will be improved by updating the fender system configuration at Berth 4 to accommodate newer, more fuel efficient vessels and thus reduce idling time for vessels waiting to berth. Further, efficiency will be improved by updating the fender system at Berth 1 to accommodate barges, enabling balanced utilization across Berths 1, 2, and 3.

    Dates and Duration

    Project construction will start in 2018 and be completed by the fourth quarter of 2022. Pile driving activities will be timed to occur within the standard NMFS work windows for listed fish species (June 1 through November 30) during those 4 years. The effective date for this initial IHA will be from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Over the course of the multi-year project, 249 piles of various sizes will be installed via impact and vibratory driving; 161 piles will be removed via vibratory removal; and 209 driving days are planned. During the first year of construction covered under this IHA, 8,24-inch concrete piles will be installed by impact driving over 4 workdays at Berth 2.

    Specified Geographic Region

    The Long Wharf is located in San Francisco Bay (the Bay) just south of the eastern terminus of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (RSRB) in Contra Costa County. The wharf is located in the northern portion of the Central Bay, which is generally defined as the area between the RSRB, Golden Gate Bridge, and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The South Bay is located south of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. San Pablo Bay extends north of the RSRB.

    Detailed Description of Specified Activities

    The complete multi-year project will involve modifications at 4 berths (Berths 1, 2, 3, and 4) as shown in Figure 1-1 in the Application. Planned modifications to the Long Wharf include replacing gangways and cranes, adding new mooring hooks and standoff fenders, adding new dolphins and catwalks, and modifying the fire water system at Berths 1, 2, 3 and/or 4, as well as the seismic retrofit to the Berth 4 loading platform. The type and numbers of piles to be installed, as well as those that will be removed, are summarized in Table 1-1 in the Application and an overview of the modifications at Berths 1 to 4 are shown in Figure 1-2 in the Application.

    The combined modifications to Berths 1-4 will require the installation of 141 new concrete piles to support new and replacement equipment and their associated structures. The Berth 4 loading platform will add 8, 60-inch diameter steel piles as part of the seismic retrofit.

    The project will also add 4 clusters of 13 composite piles each (52 total) as markers and protection of the new batter (driven at an angle) piles on the east side of the Berth 4 retrofit. The project will remove 106 existing timber piles, two existing 18-inch and two existing 24-inch concrete piles. A total of 12 24-inch temporary steel piles will also be installed and removed during the seismic retrofit of Berth 4.

    The modifications at each berth are summarized below.

    Modifications at Berth 1 include the following:

    • Replace gangway to accommodate barges and add a new raised fire monitor.

    • Construct a new 24′ x 20′ mooring dolphin and hook to accommodate barges.

    • Construct a new 24′ x 25′ breasting dolphin and 13′ x 26′ breasting point with standoff fenders to accommodate barges. The new breasting dolphin will require removal of an existing catwalk and two piles and moving a catwalk to a slightly different location to maintain access to currently existing dolphins. A new catwalk will be installed to provide access to the new breasting dolphin.

    • A portion of the existing gangway will be removed. The remaining portion is used for other existing services located on its structure.

    Much of this work will be above the water or on the deck of the terminal. The mooring dolphin and hook, breasting dolphin, and new gangway will require installation of 42 new 24-inch square concrete piles using impact driving methods.

    Modifications at Berth 2 include the following:

    • Install new gangway to replace portable gangway and add a new elevated fire monitor.

    • Replace one bollard with a new hook.

    • Install four new standoff fenders (to replace timber fender pile system).

    • Replace existing auxiliary and hose cranes and vapor recovery crane to accommodate the new standoff fenders.

    • Remove the existing timber fender pile system along the length of the Berth (~650 ft.)

    • Three (3) existing brace piles (22-inch square concrete jacketed timber piles) would be removed by cutting below the mud line if possible.

    These modifications will require the installation of 51 new 24-inch square concrete piles, using impact driving methods, to support the gangway, standoff fenders, hose crane, and auxiliary crane. To keep Berth 2 operational during construction, four temporary fenders will be installed, supported by 36 temporary 14-inch H-piles driven using vibratory methods. It is expected that the H-piles would largely sink under their own weight and would require very little driving. The H-piles and temporary fenders will be removed once the permanent standoff fenders are complete. The auxiliary and hose cranes are being replaced with cranes with longer reach to accommodate the additional distance of the new standoff fenders. The new vapor recovery crane would be mounted on an existing pedestal and not require in-water work.

    Modifications at Berth 3 include the following:

    • Install new fixed gangway to replace portable gangway and add a new raised fire monitor. The gangway would be supported by four, 24-inch square concrete piles. This would be the only in-water work for modifications at Berth 3.

    Modifications at Berth 4 include the following:

    • Install two new 36′ x 20′ dolphins with standoff fenders (two per dolphin) and two catwalks.

    • Seismically retrofit the Berth 4 loading platform including bolstering and relocation of piping and electrical facilities.

    The new fenders would add 44 new 24-inch square concrete piles.

    The seismic retrofit would structurally stiffen the Berth 4 Loading Platform under seismic loads. This will require cutting holes in the concrete decking and driving 8, 60-inch diameter hollow steel batter piles, using impact pile driving. To accommodate the new retrofit, an existing sump will be replaced with a new sump and two, 24-inch square concrete piles will be removed or cut to the mudline. The engineering team has determined that to drive the 60-inch batter piles, twelve temporary steel piles, 24 inches in diameter, will be needed to support templates for the angled piles during driving. Two templates are required, each 24 feet by 4 feet and supported by up to six 24-inch steel pipe piles. The templates will be above water. The project would also add 4 clusters of 13 composite piles each (52 total composite piles) as markers and protection of the new batter piles on the east side of the retrofit. See Table 1 for pile summary information.

    EN14JN17.000

    Note that the issued IHA covers actions occurring during 2018 only. These actions include the installation of 8, 24-inch concrete piles by impact hammer driving over 4 workdays. These piles will replace existing auxiliary and hose cranes and vapor recovery crane at Berth 2. Impact installation will occur utilizing a DelMag D62 22 or similar diesel hammer, producing approximately 165,000 ft lbs maximum energy (may not need full energy) over a duration of approximately 20 minutes per pile.

    Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in in detail later in the document (Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting sections).

    Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to Chevron was published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2017 (82 FR 05025). That notice described, in detail, Chevron's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS issue the requested IHA, subject to inclusion of the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures as described in our notice of proposed IHA and the application. All measures proposed in the initial Federal Register notice are included within the IHA.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Although 35 species of marine mammals can be found off the coast of California, few species venture into San Francisco Bay, and only Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), and harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) make the Bay a permanent home. Small numbers of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) are regularly sighted in the Bay during their yearly migration, though most sightings tend to occur in the Central Bay near the Golden Gate Bridge. Two other species that may occasionally occur within San Francisco Bay include the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Table 2 provides information about the species that are expected to potentially be present in the project area. A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 15025; March 24, 2017). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species accounts.

    Table 2—Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of the Project 1 Species Stock ESA/MMPA
  • status;
  • strategic
  • (Y/N)  2
  • Stock abundance
  • (CV/Nmin) 3
  • PBR 4 Occurrence
  • in/near project
  • Seasonal
    Pacific harbor seal, Phoca vitulina California Stock -/N 30,968 (-/27,348) 1,641 Common Year-round. California sea lion, Zalophus californianus Eastern U.S. Stock -/N 296,750 (-/153,337) 9,200 Uncommon Year-round. Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena San Francisco-Russian River Stock -/N 9,886 (0.51/6,625) 66 Common in the vicinity of the Golden Gate and Richardson's Bay, Rare elsewhere Year-round. Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus Eastern North Pacific Stock -/N 20,990 (0.05/20,125) 624 Rare to occasional December-April. 1 Source: Carretta et al., 2016 2 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 3 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the species' (or similar species') life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore. 4 Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
    Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from construction activities for the project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 15025; March 24, 2017) included a discussion of the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to the Federal Register notice for that information.

    The primary impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by impact pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible. The project would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during installation of piles during the project. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 15025; March 24, 2017), therefore, that information is not repeated here.

    Estimated Take

    This section includes an estimate of the number of incidental takes expected to occur as a result of the specified activities considered pursuant to this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is small and the negligible impact determination.

    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to impact driving. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown, soft start discussed in detail below in Proposed Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized. The death of a marine mammal is also a type of incidental take. However, as described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

    In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider the sound field in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take.

    Sound Thresholds—NMFS uses sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces underwater sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur. On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance) (81 FR 51694) (available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. As will be discussed below, NMFS has revised Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) (and Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)) onset acoustic thresholds for impulsive and non-impulsive sound as part of its new acoustic guidance. The Guidance does not address Level B harassment; therefore, NMFS uses the current acoustic exposure criteria to determine exposure to underwater noise sound pressure levels for Level B harassment (Table 5).

    During the installation of piles, the project has the potential to increase airborne noise levels. Airborne pile-driving root means square (RMS) noise levels above the NMFS airborne noise thresholds are not expected to extend to the Castro Rocks haul-out site, which is located 650 meters (m) north of Long Wharf. In addition, the Castro Rocks haul out is subject to high levels of background noise from the Richmond Bridge, ongoing vessel activity at the Long Wharf, ferry traffic, and other general boat traffic. Any pinnipeds that surface in the area over which the airborne noise thresholds may be exceeded would have already been exposed to underwater noise levels above the applicable thresholds and thus would not result in an additional incidental take. Airborne noise is not considered further.

    Source Levels—Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. In order to establish distances to PTS and behavioral harassment isopleths, the sound source level associated with a specific pile driving activity must be measured directly or estimated using proxy information. The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the material type and dimension of piles. To estimate the noise effects of the 24-inch square concrete piles planned for use in Year 1 of this project, Chevron reviewed sound pressure levels (SPLs) from other projects conducted under similar circumstances. These projects include the Pier 40 Berth Construction in San Francisco, and the Berth 22 and Berth 32 reconstruction projects at the Port of Oakland. However, NMFS elected to use data from only the Pier 40 project since 24-inch square concrete piles were installed at that location. At Berth 22 and Berth 32, 24-inch octagonal concrete piles were installed. The differences in pile shape may result in varying SPLs. Impact pile driving at Pier 40 resulted in measured RMS values ranging from 162-174 dB and peak SPLs from 172 to 186 dB. SEL measurements were not recorded. From Pier 40, NMFS selected a RMS value of 171 decibel (dB), which was the average of the eight piles tested, excluding two piles that utilized “jetting.” Jetting consists of employing a carefully directed and pressurized flow of water to assist in pile placement by liquefying soils at the pile tip during pile placement. Jetting tends to increase driving efficiency while decreasing sound levels and will not be utilized by Chevron during this project. Note that NMFS had incorrectly used a RMS value of 170 dB in the Notice of Proposed IHA. Utilizing the corrected value of 171 dB results in slightly larger predicted Level A and Level B isopleths. NMFS used an identical approach to arrive at an average peak value of 181 dB based on results from Pier 40.

    Sound Propagation—Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

    TL = B * log10 (R1/R2), Where: R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement. B = spreading loss value

    This formula does not account for loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log(range)). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log(range)). As is common practice in coastal waters, here we assume practical spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) here. Practical spreading is a compromise that is often used under conditions where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.

    Level A Zone—Chevron's Level A harassment zone was calculated by utilizing the methods presented in Appendix D of NMFS' Guidance and the accompanying User Spreadsheet. The Guidance provides updated PTS onset thresholds using the cumulative SEL (SELcum) metric, which incorporates marine mammal auditory weighting functions, to identify the received levels, or acoustic thresholds, at which individual marine mammals are predicted to experience changes in their hearing sensitivity for acute, incidental exposure to all underwater anthropogenic sound sources. The Guidance and its companion User Spreadsheet provide alternative methodology for incorporating these more complex thresholds and associated weighting functions.

    The User Spreadsheet accounts for weighting functions using Weighting Factor Adjustments (WFAs), and NMFS used the recommended values for impact driving therein (2 kilohertz (kHz)). Pile driving durations were estimated based on similar project experience. NMFS' new acoustic thresholds use dual metrics of SELcum and peak sound level (PK) for impulsive sounds (e.g., impact pile driving). The noise levels noted above were used in the Spreadsheet for 24-inch square concrete piles. It was estimated that two piles would be installed in one 24-hr workday with installation for each pile requiring approximately 300 blows. NMFS used an RMS of 171 dB and pulse duration of 0.1 seconds. Measured SEL values were not available for 24-inch square concrete piles.

    Utilizing the User Spreadsheet, NMFS applied the updated PTS onset thresholds for impulsive PK and SELcum in the new acoustic guidance to determine distance to the isopleths for PTS onset for impact pile driving. In determining the cumulative sound exposure levels, the Guidance considers the duration of the activity, the sound exposure level produced by the source during a 24-hr period, and the generalized hearing range of the receiving species. In the case of the duel metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sound, the larger of the two isopleths for calculating PTS onset is used. Results in Table 4 display the Level A injury zones for the various hearing groups.

    Table 4—Injury Zones and Shutdown Zones For Hearing Groups Associated With Installation of 24-Inch Concrete Piles Via Impact Driving Hearing group Low-frequency cetaceans
  • (gray whale)
  • Mid-frequency cetaceans High-frequency cetaceans
  • (harbor porpoise)
  • Phocid pinnipeds
  • (harbor seal)
  • Otariid pinnipeds
  • (CA sea lion)
  • PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds—Impulsive *
  • (Received Level)
  • Lpk,flat: 219 dB
  • LE,LF,24h: 183 dB
  • Lpk,flat: 230 dB
  • LE,MF,24h: 185 dB
  • Lpk,flat: 202 dB
  • LE,HF,24h: 155 dB
  • Lpk,flat: 218 dB
  • LE,PW,24h: 185 dB
  • Lpk,flat: 232 dB
  • LE,OW,24h: 203 dB
  • PTS Isopleth to threshold (m) 24.3 0.9 28.9 13.0 0.9 * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. Note: Peak sound pressure (L pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (L E) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript “flat” is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.

    The zone of influence (ZOI) refers to the area(s) in which SPLs equal or exceed NMFS' current Level B harassment thresholds (160 dB for impulse sound). Calculated radial distances to the 160 dB threshold assume a field free of obstruction. Assuming a source level of 171 dB RMS, installation of the 24-inch concrete piles is expected to produce underwater sound exceeding the Level B 160 dB RMS threshold over a distance of 54 meters (177 feet) (Table 5).

    Table 5—Isopleth for Level B harassment associated with impact driving of 24-inch concrete piles Criterion Definition Threshold Isopleth
  • (distance from source)
  • Level B harassment Behavioral disruption 160 dB RMS
  • (impulse sources)
  • 54m

    Density/Abundance—Data specifying a marine mammal's density or abundance in a given area can often be used to generate exposure estimates. However, no systematic line transect surveys of marine mammals have been performed in the San Francisco Bay near the project site. Density information for marine mammal species has been generated by Caltrans based on 15 years (2000-2015) of observations as part of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge replacement project (Caltrans 2016). The data revealed densities of 0.00004 animals/kilometer (km2 for gray whale, 0.021 animals/km2 for harbor porpoise, 0.09 animals/km2 for California sea lion, and 0.17 animals/km2 for harbor seal. Utilization of these data to develop exposure estimates results in very small exposure values. Despite the near zero estimate provided through use of the Caltrans density data, local observational data led us to believe that this estimate may not be accurate in illustrating the potential for take at this particular site, so we have to use other information. Instead, NMFS relied on local observational data as described below.

    Take Estimate—The estimated number of marine mammals that may be exposed to noise at levels expected to result in take as defined in the MMPA is determined by comparing the calculated areas over which the Level B harassment threshold may be exceeded, as described above, with the expected distribution of marine mammal species within the vicinity of the project. NMFS calculated take qualitatively utilizing observational data taken during marine mammal monitoring associated with the RSRB retrofit project, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge replacement project, and other marine mammal observations for San Francisco Bay. As described previously in the Effects section, Level B Harassment is expected to occur and is authorized in the numbers identified below.

    Pacific Harbor Seal

    Castro Rocks is the largest harbor seal haul out site in the northern part of San Francisco Bay and is the second largest pupping site in the Bay (Green et al., 2002). The pupping season is from March to June in San Francisco Bay. During the molting season (typically June-July and coinciding with the period when piles will be driven) as many as 129 harbor seals have been observed using Castro Rocks as a haul out. Harbor seals are more likely to be hauled out in the late afternoon and evening, and are more likely to be in the water during the morning and early afternoon (Green et al., 2002). However, during the molting season, harbor seals spend more time hauled out and tend to enter the water later in the evening. During molting, harbor seals can stay onshore resting for an average of 12 hours per day during the molt compared to around 7 hours per day outside of the pupping/molting seasons (NPS 2014).

    Tidal stage is a major controlling factor of haul out usage at Castro Rocks with more seals present during low tides than high tide periods (Green et al., 2002). Additionally, the number of seals hauled out at Castro Rocks also varies with the time of day, with proportionally more animals hauled out during the nighttime hours (Green et al., 2002). Therefore, the number of harbor seals in the water around Castro Rocks will vary throughout the work period. The take estimates are based on the highest number of harbor seals observed at Castro Rocks during 2007 to 2012 annual surveys (approximately 129 seals). Without site-specific data, it is impossible to determine how many hauled out seals enter the water and, of those, how many enter into the Level B harassment area. Given the relatively small size of the Level B harassment area compared to the large expanse of Bay water that is available to the seals, NMFS will assume that no more than 6 seals per day would enter into the Level B harassment area during the 40 minutes of pile driving per day scheduled to occur over 4 days. Therefore, NMFS authorizes Level B take of up to 6 seals per day may over 4 days of impact driving, resulting in a total of 24 authorized incidents of take.

    California Sea Lion

    Relatively few California sea lions are expected to be present in the project area during periods of pile driving, as there are no haul-outs utilized by this species in the vicinity. However, monitoring for the RSRB did observe small numbers of this species in the north and central portions of the Bay during working hours. During monitoring that occurred over a period of May 1998 to February 2002, California sea lions were sighted at least 90 times in the northern portion of the Central Bay and at least 57 times near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the Central Bay. During monitoring for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Project in the Central Bay, California sea lions were observed on 69 occasions in the vicinity of the bridge over a 14-year period from 2000-2014 (Caltrans 2015b). The limited data regarding these observations do not allow a quantitative assessment of potential take. Given the limited driving time, low number of sea lions that are likely to be found in the northern part of the Bay, and small size of the level B zone, NMFS is authorizing a total of two incidents of take for California sea lions.

    Harbor Porpoise

    A small but growing population of harbor porpoises utilizes San Francisco Bay. Harbor porpoises are typically spotted in the vicinity of Angel Island and the Golden Gate Bridge (6 and 12 km southwest respectively) (Keener 2011), but may utilize other areas in the Central Bay in low numbers, including the project area. The density and frequency of this usage throughout the Bay is unknown. For this IHA, NMFS is not authorizing take of any harbor porpoise since the exclusion zone will be conservatively set at 55 m, which is larger than the Level B zone isopleth of 54 m, and take can be avoided.

    Gray Whale

    The only whale species that enters San Francisco bay with any regularity is the gray whale. Gray whales occasionally enter the Bay during their northward migration period, and are most often sighted in the Bay between February and May. Most venture only about 2 to 3 km past the Golden Gate Bridge, but gray whales have occasionally been sighted as far north as San Pablo Bay. Impact pile driving is not expected to occur during this time, however, and gray whales are not likely to be present at other times of year. Furthermore, the exclusion zone of 55 m for this species is larger than the Level B zone isopleth of 54 m. As such, NMFS is not authorizing any gray whale take.

    Table 6 shows estimated Level B take for authorized species.

    Table 6—Summary of Estimated Take by Species (Level B Harassment) Pile type Pile driver type Number
  • of piles
  • Number of
  • driving days
  • Species Harbor seal CA sea lion
    24-inch square concrete Impact 8 4 24 2
    Mitigation

    Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS shall prescribe the permissible methods of taking by harassment pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.

    To ensure that the “least practicable impact” will be achieved, NMFS evaluates mitigation measures in consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

    • The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, their habitat; and

    • their availability for subsistence uses (latter where relevant); the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation.

    Mitigation for Mammals and Their Habitat

    The following measures would apply to Chevron's mitigation through the exclusion zone and zone of influence (ZOI):

    Time Restriction—For all in-water pile driving activities, Chevron shall operate only during daylight hours when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.

    Seasonal Restriction—To minimize impacts to listed fish species, pile-driving activities would occur between June 1 and November 30.

    Exclusion Zone—For all pile driving activities, Chevron will establish an exclusion zone intended to contain the area in which Level A harassment thresholds are exceeded. The purpose of the exclusion zone is to define an area within which shutdown of construction activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal within that area (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing potential injury of marine mammals. The calculated distance to Level A harassment isopleths threshold during impact pile driving, assuming a maximum of 2 piles per day is 28.9 m for harbor porpoise; 13.0 m for harbor seal; 0.9 m for California sea lion, and; 24.3 m for gray whales.

    NMFS will require a 15 m exclusion zone for harbor seals and California sea lions. In order to prevent any take of the cetacean species, a 55 m exclusion zone will be required for harbor porpoises and gray whales, which exceeds the Level B harassment isopleth. A shutdown will occur prior to a marine mammal entering the shutdown zones. Activity will cease until the observer is confident that the animal is clear of the shutdown zone. The animal will be considered clear if:

    • It has been observed leaving the shutdown zone; or

    • It has not been seen in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes for cetaceans and 15 minutes for pinnipeds.

    10-Meter Shutdown Zone—During the in-water operation of heavy machinery (e.g., barge movements), a 10-m shutdown zone for all marine mammals will be implemented. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions.

    Level B Harassment Zone (Zone of Influence)—The ZOI refers to the area(s) in which SPLs equal or exceed NMFS' current Level B harassment thresholds (160 dB rms for pulse sources). ZOIs provide utility for monitoring that is conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., exclusion zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the exclusion zone. Monitoring of the ZOI enables observers to be aware of, and communicate about, the presence of marine mammals within the project area but outside the exclusion zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity should those marine mammals approach the exclusion zone. However, the primary purpose of ZOI monitoring is to allow documentation of incidents of Level B harassment; ZOI monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see Monitoring and Reporting). The modeled radial distances for the ZOI for impact pile driving of 24-inch square concrete piles is 54 m. NMFS will require a 55 m Level B zone for harbor seals and California sea lions.

    In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors will record all marine mammals observed within the ZOI. Due to the relatively small ZOI and to the monitoring locations chosen by Chevron we expect that two monitors will be able to observe the entire ZOI.

    The shutdown zone and ZOI shall be monitored throughout the time required to install a pile. If a harbor seal or California sea lion is observed entering the ZOI, a Level B exposure shall be recorded and behaviors documented. That pile segment shall be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches the shutdown zone. Pile installation shall be halted immediately before the animal enters the Level A zone.

    If any marine mammal species other than those for which take is authorized, or if a species for which authorization has been granted but the number of authorized takes has been met enters or approaches the ZOI, all activities shall be shut down until the animal is observed leaving the ZOI or it has not been observed in the ZOI for 30 minutes for cetaceans and 15 minutes for pinnipeds.

    Ramp up/Soft-Start—A “soft-start” technique is intended to allow marine mammals to vacate the area before the pile driver reaches full power. For impact driving, an initial set of three strikes would be made by the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-sec waiting period, then two subsequent three- strike sets before initiating continuous driving. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of thirty minutes or longer.

    If a marine mammal is present within a shutdown zone, ramping up shall be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the relevant shutdown zone. Activity shall begin only after the MMO has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the relevant shutdown zone or it has not been observed in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes for cetaceans and 15 minutes for pinnipeds.

    If an authorized species is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up shall begin and a Level B take shall be documented. Ramping up shall occur when these species are in the Level B harassment zone whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A zone, or from outside the project area.

    Pile Caps/Cushions—Chevron will employ the use of pile caps or cushions as sound attenuation devices to reduce impacts from sound exposure during impact pile driving.

    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, we have determined that the required mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

    Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.

    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:

    • Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the action area (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density);

    • Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);

    • Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;

    • How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;

    • Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and

    • Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

    Chevron will collect sighting data and will record behavioral responses to construction activities for marine mammal species observed in the project location during the period of activity. Monitoring will be conducted by qualified marine mammal observers (MMO), who are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:

    • Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are required;

    • At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer;

    • Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;

    • Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;

    • Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

    • Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

    • Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior;

    • Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary; and

    • NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.

    Chevron will monitor the exclusion zones and Level B harassment zone before, during, and after pile driving, with at least two observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan would implement the following procedures for pile driving:

    • During observation periods, observers will continuously scan the area for marine mammals using binoculars and the naked eye;

    • Monitoring shall begin 30 minutes prior to impact pile driving;

    • Observers will conduct observations, meet training requirements, fill out data forms, and report findings in accordance with this IHA;

    • If the exclusion zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until the exclusion zone is clearly visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted;

    • Observers will be in continuous contact with the construction personnel via two-way radio. A cellular phone will be used for back-up communications and for safety purposes;

    • Observers will implement mitigation measures including monitoring of the shutdown and monitoring zones, clearing of the zones, and shutdown procedures; and

    • At the end of the pile-driving day, post-construction monitoring will be conducted for 30 minutes beyond the cessation of pile driving.

    Sound Source Verification

    Sound Source Verification (SSV) testing of impact driving will be conducted under this IHA. Little data exist for source levels associated with installation of 24-in square concrete piles (including data on single strike sound exposure level metrics). Chevron will conduct in-situ measurements during installation of four out of eight piles. The SSV will be conducted by an acoustical firm with prior experience conducting SSV tests. NMFS must approve the acoustic monitoring plan. Final results will be sent to NMFS. Findings will be used to establish Level A and Level B isopleths during impact driving of 24-in square concrete piles for future IHA's associated with this project.

    Data Collection

    We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, chevron will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile being driven, a description of specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, Chevron will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take, when possible. We require that, at a minimum, that the following information be recorded on sighting forms:

    • Date and time that permitted construction activity begins or ends;

    • Weather parameters (e.g., percent cloud cover, percent glare, visibility) and Beaufort sea state;

    • Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of observed marine mammals;

    • Construction activities occurring during each sighting;

    • Marine mammal behavior patterns observed, including bearing and direction of travel;

    • Specific focus should be paid to behavioral reactions just prior to, or during, soft-start and shutdown procedures;

    • Location of marine mammal, distance from observer to the marine mammal, and distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals;

    • Record of whether an observation required the implementation of mitigation measures, including shutdown procedures and the duration of each shutdown; and

    • Other human activity in the area. Record the hull numbers of fishing vessels if possible.

    Reporting Measures

    Chevron shall submit a draft report to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project (if required), whichever comes first. The annual report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will become final. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted up to 30 days after receipt of comments. Reports shall contain the following information:

    • Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals);

    • Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare); and

    • Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), and group sizes.

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), Chevron would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the following information:

    • Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    • Name and type of vessel involved (if applicable);

    • Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident (if applicable);

    • Description of the incident;

    • Status of all sound source used in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Water depth;

    • Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Chevron to determine necessary actions to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance.

    Chevron would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

    In the event that Chevron discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Chevron would immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same information identified in the section above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with Chevron to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    In the event that Chevron discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Chevron would report the incident to Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. Chevron would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Pile driving activities would be permitted to continue.

    Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering the authorized number of marine mammals that might be taken through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as effects on habitat, the status of the affected stocks, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into these analyses via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

    To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 7 given that the anticipated effects of Chevron's construction activities involving impact pile driving on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, or else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.

    Impact pile driving activities associated with the project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance), from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when in-water construction is under way.

    No marine mammal stocks for which incidental take authorization are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or determined to be strategic or depleted under the MMPA. No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Chevron's impact pile driving activities. The relatively low marine mammal density and small shutdown zones make injury takes of marine mammals unlikely. In addition, the Level A exclusion zones would be thoroughly monitored before the impact pile driving occurs and driving activities would be would be postponed if a marine mammal is sighted entering the exclusion zones. The likelihood that marine mammals will be detected by trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described for the project. The employment of the soft-start mitigation measure would also allow marine mammal in or near the ZOI or exclusion zone to move away from the impact driving sound source. Therefore, the mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to eliminate the potential for injury and reduce the amount and intensity of behavioral harassment. Furthermore, the pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous construction activities conducted in other similar locations which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment.

    The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral) as only eight piles will be driven over 4 days with each pile requiring approximately 20 minutes of driving time. Marine mammals present near the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (e.g. startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise level during pile driving. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole.

    The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. While EFH for several species does exist in the project area, the activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may cause fish to leave the area temporarily. This could impact marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of affected habitat, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.

    In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of non-auditory injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the short duration of in-water construction activities (4 days, 160 minutes total driving time); (4) limited spatial impacts to marine mammal habitat; and (5) the presumed efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.

    The numbers of animals authorized to be taken would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (<0.01 percent for both species as shown in Table 7) even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual. However, the likelihood that each take would occur to a new individual is extremely low. Further, these takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall regional stock.

    Table 7—Population Abundance Estimates, Total Authorized Level B Take, and Percentage of Population That May Be Taken for the Potentially Affected Species During the Project Species Abundance* Total level B take Percentage of stock or
  • population
  • Harbor seal 1 30,968 24 <0.01 California sea lion (U.S. Stock) 296,750 2 <0.01 * Abundance estimates are taken from the 2015 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta et al., 2016). 1 California stock abundance estimate.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

    Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA. No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with NEPA. NMFS has established categorical exclusion (CE) status under NEPA for this action. As such, we have determined the issuance of the IHA is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical exclusion. NMFS has prepared a CE memorandum for the record.

    Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to Chevron for the harassment of small numbers of harbor seals and California sea lions incidental to the Richmond Refinery Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project in San Francisco Bay, California effective for one year beginning January 1, 2018, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12295 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF436 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an Outreach meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and St. Paul Residents.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will meet June 26 through June 27, 2017.

    DATES:

    Several Council members and Council staff will be meeting with community members and organizations on Monday, June 26 and Tuesday, June 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meetings will be held in the Community Center on St. Paul Island, AK.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve MacLean, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Monday, June 26, 2017 Through Tuesday, June 27, 2017

    Public outreach meetings with St. Paul community members and organizations will be held. Issues for discussion will include the local halibut fishery and halibut bycatch, the Bering Sea Crab fishery, conservation of Northern Fur Seals, and other pertinent fishery management issues. All meetings are open to the public. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: June 8, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12257 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Board of Visitors, Marine Corps University (“the Board”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    The Board provides the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense with independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to the Marine Corps University. The Board shall be composed of at least 7 and not more than 11 members who must be eminent authorities in the fields of education, defense, management, economics, leadership, academia, national military strategy, or international affairs. Members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. Members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee members. Each member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Board-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation. The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board, and all subcommittees must operate under the provisions of FACA and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and must report all recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Board's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and must be in attendance for the duration of each and every Board/subcommittee meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Such statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned Board meetings. All written statements must be submitted to the Board's DFO who will ensure the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12318 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0084] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Request for Title IV Reimbursement or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 (HCM2) AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0084. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-32, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jo-Anne Cheatom, 202-377-3730.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Request for Title IV Reimbursement or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 (HCM2).

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0089.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 732.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,660.

    Abstract: The collection of this information is needed in order for the Payment Analysts in Federal Student Aid, an office of the U. S. Department of Education, to review and process the institutional payment request for Title IV funds. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) requires that the Secretary prescribe regulations to ensure that any funds eligible postsecondary institutions receive under the HEA are used solely for the purposes specified in and in accordance with the provision of the applicable program. 34 CFR 668.161 and 668.162 establish the rules and procedures for a participating institution to request, maintain, disburse, and manage Title IV program funds.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12283 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [9956-83-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Minnesota AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Minnesota's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 14, 2017 for the State of Minnesota's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On March 27, 2017, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) submitted an amended application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed MDH's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Minnesota's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the Federal Register.

    MDH was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of Minnesota's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request; (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order either affirming today's determination or rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA's approval of the State of Minnesota's request to revise its part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12287 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1017; FRL-9959-78] Final Test Guideline; Product Performance Test Guidelines; OCSPP 810.3900 Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug Pesticide Products; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing the availability of a final test guideline, Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug Pesticide Products; OCSPP Test Guideline 810.3900. This test guideline is part of a series of test guidelines established by the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) for use in testing pesticides and chemical substances. The test guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted scientific methodologies and protocols that are intended to provide data to inform regulatory decisions. This test guideline provides guidance for conducting a study to determine pesticide product performance against bed bugs, and is used by EPA, the public, and companies that submit data to EPA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    EPA is announcing the availability of a final test guideline, Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug Pesticide Products; OCSPP Test Guideline 810.3900.

    This test guideline is part of a series of test guidelines established by OCSPP for use in testing pesticides and chemical substances to develop data for submission to the agency under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346a), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). The test guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted scientific methodologies and protocols that are intended to provide data to inform regulatory decisions under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA.

    The test guidelines provide guidance for conducting the test, and are also used by EPA, the public, and companies that are subject to data submission requirements under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA. As guidance documents, the test guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and EPA may depart from the test guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. At places in this guidance, the agency uses the word “should.” In this guidance, use of “should” with regard to an action means that the action is recommended rather than mandatory. The procedures contained in the test guidelines are recommended for generating the data that are the subject of the test guideline, but EPA recognizes that departures may be appropriate in specific situations. You may propose alternatives to the recommendations described in the test guidelines, and the agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.

    II. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of pesticides and chemical substances for submission to EPA under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA, the agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket for this document. The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1017, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    2. Electronic access to the OCSPP test guidelines. To access OCSPP test guidelines electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/testmeth.htm. You may also access the test guidelines in http://www.regulations.gov, grouped by series under docket ID numbers: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150 through EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0159 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0576.

    III. Overview A. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of a final test guideline under Series 810.3900 entitled “Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug Pesticide Products” and identified as OCSPP Test Guideline 810.3900. This guideline provides recommendations for the design and execution of laboratory studies to evaluate the performance of pesticide products intended to repel, attract, and/or kill the common bed bug (Cimex lectularius) in connection with registration of pesticide products under the FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.). This guidance applies to products in any formulation such as a liquid, aerosol, fog, or impregnated fabric, if intended to be applied to have a pesticidal purpose such as to attract, repel, or kill bed bugs. It does not apply to repellent products applied to human skin, and does not apply to those products exempt from FIFRA registration under 40 CFR 152.25.

    B. How was this final test guideline developed?

    EPA-registered pesticide products are an important part of pest management programs for the control of bed bugs. The agency developed the product performance guideline to standardize the approaches to testing methods to ensure the quality and validity of the efficacy data for these types of products. The agency attended entomology and bed bug specific conferences, consulted with leading bed bug academics, and consulted peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the issues associated with the guideline to draft the original document. Further, EPA sought advice and recommendations from the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP meeting, held on March 6-7, 2012, was announced in the Federal Register issue of January 11, 2012 (77 FR 1677) (FRL-9331-6). The guideline has been revised based on comments from the SAP and the public. The revisions include decreasing the number of individuals and replicates tested, rescinding the recommendation to test each field strain for its resistance ratio and including a resistance management statement, clarifying the agency's Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) requirements, reducing the recommended length of time individuals are exposed to insecticides, recommending individuals to be observed up to 96 hours after treatment, and revising the statistical analyses recommendations.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: May 16, 2017. Wendy C. Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12347 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9963-68-ORD] Human Studies Review Board; Notification of Public Meetings AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of the Science Advisor announces two separate public meetings of the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to advise the Agency on the ethical and scientific review of research involving human subjects.

    DATES:

    A virtual public meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. A separate, subsequent teleconference meeting is planned for Friday, September 15, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for the HSRB to finalize its Final Report of the July 26, 2017 meeting and review other possible topics.

    ADDRESSES:

    Both of these meetings will be conducted entirely by telephone and on the Internet using Adobe Connect. For detailed access information visit the HSRB Web site: https://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public who wishes to receive further information should contact the HSRB Designated Federal Official (DFO), Jim Downing on telephone number (202) 564-2468; fax number: (202) 564-2070; email address: [email protected]; or mailing address: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Science Advisor, Mail code 8105R, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Meeting access: These meetings are open to the public. The full Agenda and meeting materials are available at the HSRB Web site: https://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board . For questions on document availability, or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult with the DFO, Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    How may I participate in this meeting?

    The HSRB encourages the public's input. You may participate in these meetings by following the instructions in this section.

    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments during either meeting will be accepted up to Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 19, 2017, for the July 26, 2017 meeting and up to Noon Eastern Time on Friday, September 8, 2017 for the September 15, 2017 teleconference. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the HSRB Chair to present oral comments during either meeting at the designated time on the agenda. Oral comments before the HSRB are generally limited to five minutes per individual or organization. If additional time is available, further public comments may be possible.

    2. Written comments. Submit your written comments prior to the meetings. For the Board to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates, you should submit your comments by Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 19 2016, for the July 26, 2017 meeting, and by noon Eastern Time on Friday, September 8, 2017 for the September 15, 2017 teleconference. If you submit comments after these dates, those comments will be provided to the HSRB members, but you should recognize that the HSRB members may not have adequate time to consider your comments prior to their discussion. You should submit your comments to the DFO, Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

    Background

    The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App.2 section 9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of third-party human subjects research that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to be used for regulatory purposes.

    Topic for discussion. On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, EPA's Human Studies Review Board will consider one topic: Field evaluation of three topically applied insect repellent products containing IR3535 against mosquitoes in Florida.

    The Agenda and meeting materials for this topic will be available in advance of the meeting at https://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.

    On September 15, 2017, the Human Studies Review Board will review and finalize their draft Final Report from the July 26, 2017 meeting, in addition to other topics that may come before the Board. The HSRB may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. The agenda and the draft report will be available prior to the teleconference at https://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.

    Meeting minutes and final reports. Minutes of these meetings, summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations made by the HSRB, will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. These minutes will be available at https://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board. In addition, information regarding the HSRB's Final Report, will be found at https://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board or from Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Robert J. Kavlock, EPA Science Advisor.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12345 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 17-06] Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment: Tarik Afif Chaouch v. Demetrios Air Freight Co., Demetrios International Shipping Co., Inc., and Troy Container Line Ltd

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by Tarik Afif Chaouch, hereinafter “Complainant,” against Demetrios Air Freight Co., Demetrios International Shipping Co., Inc., and Troy Container Line LTD, hereinafter “Respondents.” Complainant states it hired the Respondents to ship two cars to Algiers, Algeria.

    Complainant alleges that due to an error the Respondents made on the bill of lading, the shipment was “impounded in Algiers, Algeria for approximately four months.” Complainant alleges that this error resulted in costs for which complainant would not have otherwise been responsible. Complainant alleges that it is “subject to injury as a result of the violations by respondent of sections 46 U.S.C. code § 41104 and more specifically paragraphs 4 and 5.”

    Complainant seeks reparations in the amount of $21,086.70, and other relief. The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at www.fmc.gov/17-06/.

    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by June 8, 2018, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by December 21, 2018.

    Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12296 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30 Day-17-1015] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    The National Electronic Health Records Survey (NEHRS) (OMB Control No. 0920-1015, Expires 04/30/2017)— Reinstatement with Change—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “utilization of health care” in the United States. NEHRS was originally designed as a mail supplement to the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). Questions in NEHRS have been asked in NAMCS starting in 2001.

    The purpose of NEHRS is to measure progress toward goals for electronic health records (EHRs) adoption. NEHRS target universe consists of all non-Federal office-based physicians (excluding those in the specialties of anesthesiology, radiology, and pathology) who are engaged in direct patient care.

    NEHRS is the principal source of data on national and state-level EHR adoption in the United States. In 2008 and 2009, the sample size was 2,000 physicians annually. Starting in 2010, the annual sample size was increased five-fold, from 2,000 physicians to 10,302 physicians. The increased sample size allows for more reliable national estimates as well as state-level estimates on EHR adoption without having to be combined with NAMCS. For these reasons, in 2012 NEHRS became an independent survey, not as a supplement under NAMCS.

    NEHRS collects information on characteristics of physician practices, the capabilities of EHRs in those practices, and intent to apply for meaningful use incentive payments. These data, together with trend data, may be used to monitor the adoption of EHR as well as accessing factors associated with EHR adoption. In 2017, a set of follow-up questionnaires will be incorporated into the survey that focuses on content related to physician attitudes on using EHRs.

    Users of NEHRS data include, but are not limited to, Congressional offices, Federal agencies, state and local governments, schools of public health, colleges and universities, private industry, nonprofit foundations, professional associations, clinicians, researchers, administrators, and health planners. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 6,295.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Office-based physicians NEHRS 10,302 1 30/60 Office-based physicians Follow-up NEHRS Elec Resp 858 1 20/60 Office-based physicians Follow-up NEHRS Non-Elec Resp 859 1 20/60 Office-based physicians Follow-up NEHRS Nonresp 1,717 1 20/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12272 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10652] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10652 Virtual Groups for Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS)

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection of information request; Title of Information Collection: Virtual Groups for Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS); Use: CMS acknowledges the unique challenges that small practices and practices in rural areas may face with the implementation of the Quality Payment Program. To help support these practices and provide them with additional flexibility, CMS has created a virtual group reporting option starting with the 2018 MIPS performance period. CMS held webinars and small, interactive feedback sessions to gain insight from clinicians as we developed our policies on virtual groups. During these sessions, participants expressed a strong interest in virtual groups, and indicated that the right policies could minimize clinician burden and bolster clinician success.

    This information collection request is related to the statutorily required virtual group election process proposed in the CY 2018 Quality Payment Program proposed rule. A virtual group is a combination of Tax Identification Numbers (TINs), which would include at least two separate TINs associated with a solo practitioner TIN and National Provider Identifier (TIN/NPI) or group with 10 or fewer MIPS eligible clinicians and another solo practitioner (TIN/NPI) or group with 10 or fewer MIPS eligible clinicians.

    Section 1848(q)(5)(I) of the Act requires that CMS establish and have in place a process to allow an individual MIPS eligible clinician or group consisting of not more than 10 MIPS eligible clinicians to elect, with respect to a performance period for a year to be in a virtual group with at least one other such individual MIPS eligible clinician or group. The Act also provides for the use of voluntary virtual groups for certain assessment purposes, including the election of practices to be a virtual group and the requirements for the election process.

    Section 1848(q)(5)(I)(i) of the Act also provides that MIPS eligible clinicians electing to be a virtual group must: (1) Have their performance assessed for the quality and cost performance categories in a manner that applies the combined performance of all the MIPS eligible clinicians in the virtual group to each MIPS eligible clinician in the virtual group for the applicable performance period; and (2) be scored for the quality and cost performance categories based on such assessment.

    CMS will use the data collected from virtual group representatives to determine eligibility to participate in a virtual group, approve the formation of that virtual group, based on determination of each TIN size, and assign a virtual group identifier to the virtual group. The data collected will also be used to assign a performance score to each TIN/NPI in the virtual group. Form Number: CMS-10652 (OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector: Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions and Individuals; Number of Respondents: 16; Total Annual Responses: 16; Total Annual Hours: 160. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Michelle Peterman at 410-786-2591.)

    Dated: June 8, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12229 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Availability of Program Application Instructions for MIPPA Program Funds

    Title: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act: State Plans for Medicare Savings Program, Low Income Subsidy & Prescription Drug Enrollment Outreach and Assistance.

    Announcement Type: Initial.

    Funding Opportunity Number: CIP-MI-17-001.

    Statutory Authority: The statutory authority for grants under this program announcement is contained in the 2006 Reauthorization of the Older Americans Act—Section 202 and the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008—Section 119, Public Law (PL) 110-275 as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act), reauthorized by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.071.

    Dates: The deadline date for the submission of MIPPA Program State Plans is 11:59PM EST August 14, 2017.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description

    The purpose of MIPPA funding is to enhance state efforts to provide assistance to Medicare beneficiaries through statewide and local coalition building focused on intensified outreach activities to beneficiaries likely to be eligible for the Low Income Subsidy program (LIS) or the Medicare Savings Program (MSP), and to assist those beneficiaries in applying for benefits. ACL will provide MIPPA program funding to State Health Insurance Assistance Programs (SHIPs), Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs), and Aging and Disability Resource Center programs (ADRCs) to inform Medicare beneficiaries about available Medicare program benefits. ACL seeks plans from states that will describe how the MIPPA program funds will be used for beneficiary outreach, education, and one-on-one application assistance over the next year.

    ACL requests that states submit a one (1) year state plan with specific project strategies to expand, extend, or enhance their one-on-one assistance, education, and group outreach efforts to Medicare beneficiaries on Medicare and assistance programs for those with limited incomes. States should describe how the SHIP, AAA, and ADRC efforts will be coordinated to provide outreach to beneficiaries with limited incomes statewide. States that are eligible to apply are asked to review previous MIPPA plans and update these plans to reflect successes achieved to date and direct their efforts to enhance and expand their MIPPA outreach activities. State agencies may prepare either one statewide plan or separate plans for each eligible State agency.

    II. Award Information 1. Funding Instrument Type

    These awards will be made in the form of grants to State Agencies for each MIPPA Priority Area:

    Priority Area 1—Grants to State Agencies (the State Unit on Aging or the State Department of Insurance) that administer the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) to provide enhanced outreach to eligible Medicare beneficiaries regarding their benefits, enhanced outreach and application assistance to individuals who may be eligible for the Medicare Low Income Subsidy (LIS) or the Medicare Savings Program (MSP), and for the purposes of conducting outreach activities aimed at preventing disease and promoting wellness.

    Priority Area 2—Grants to State Units on Aging for Area Agencies on Aging to provide enhanced outreach to eligible Medicare beneficiaries regarding their Medicare benefits, enhanced outreach and one-on-one application assistance to individuals who may be eligible for the LIS or the MSP, and for the purposes of conducting outreach activities aimed at preventing disease and promoting wellness.

    Priority Area 3—Grants to State Units on Aging that administer the Aging and Disability Resource Centers to provide outreach to individuals regarding Medicare Part D benefits, benefits available under the LIS and MSP, and for the purposes of conducting outreach activities aimed at preventing disease and promoting wellness.

    2. Anticipated Total Priority Area Funding per Budget Period

    ACL intends to make available, under this program announcement, grant awards for the three MIPPA priority areas. Funding will be distributed through a formula as identified in statute. The amounts allocated are based upon factors defined in statute and will be distributed to each priority area based on the formula. ACL will fund total project periods of up to one (1) year contingent upon availability of federal funds.

    Priority Area 1—SHIP: $11.5 million in FY 2017 for state agencies that administer the SHIP Program.

    Priority Area 2—AAA: $7.9 million in FY 2017 for State Units on Aging for Area Agencies on Aging and for Native American programs. Funding for Native American Programs ($270,000) is deducted from Priority 2 and is being allocated through a separate process.

    Priority Area 3—ADRC: $6 million in FY 2017 for State Agencies that received an ACL, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC)/No Wrong Door System (NWD) grant to support the development of their ADRC/NWD Systems.

    III. Eligibility Criteria and Other Requirements

    1. Eligible Applicants for MIPPA Priority Areas 1, 2 and 3: Awards made under this announcement, by statute, will be made only to agencies of State Governments.

    Priority Area 1: Only existing SHIP grant recipients are eligible to apply.

    Priority Area 2: Only State Units on Aging are eligible to apply.

    Priority Area 3: Only State Agencies that received an ACL, CMS, VHA Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC)/No Wrong Door System (NWD) grant to support the development of their ADRC/NWD Systems are eligible for MIPPA funding in FY 2017.

    Eligibility may change if future funding is available.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching is not required.

    3. DUNS Number.

    All grant applicants must obtain and keep current a D-U-N-S number from Dun and Bradstreet. It is a nine-digit identification number, which provides unique identifiers of single business entities. The D-U-N-S number can be obtained from: https://iupdate.dnb.com/iUpdate/viewiUpdateHome.htm.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, is not applicable to these grant applications.

    IV. Submission Information 1. Application Kits

    Application kits/Program Instructions are available at www.grantsolutions.gov. Instructions for completing the application kit will be available on the site.

    2. Submission Dates and Times

    To receive consideration, applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on August 14, 2017, through www.GrantSolutions.gov.

    V. Agency Contacts

    Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling, Washington, DC 20201, attention: Isaac C. Long or by calling 202-795-7315 or by email [email protected]

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Daniel P. Berger, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12339 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0622] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Color Additive Certification Requests and Recordkeeping AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection provisions of FDA's regulations governing batch certification of color additives manufactured for use in foods, drugs, cosmetics, or medical devices in the United States.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 14, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 14, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0622 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Color Additive Certification Requests and Recordkeeping.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    JonnaLynn Capezzuto, FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Color Additive Certification Requests and Recordkeeping—21 CFR Part 80—OMB Control Number 0910-0216—Extension

    We have regulatory oversight for color additives used in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices. Section 721(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(a)) provides that a color additive shall be deemed to be unsafe unless it meets the requirements of a listing regulation, including any requirement for batch certification, and is used in accordance with the regulation. We list color additives that have been shown to be safe for their intended uses in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). We require batch certification for all color additives listed in 21 CFR part 74 and for all color additives provisionally listed in 21 CFR part 82. Color additives listed in 21 CFR part 73 are exempted from certification.

    The requirements for color additive certification are described in 21 CFR part 80. In the certification procedure, a representative sample of a new batch of color additive, accompanied by a “request for certification” that provides information about the batch, must be submitted to FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors. FDA personnel perform chemical and other analyses of the representative sample and, providing the sample satisfies all certification requirements, issue a certification lot number for the batch. We charge a fee for certification based on the batch weight and require manufacturers to keep records of the batch pending and after certification.

    Under § 80.21, a request for certification must include: Name of color additive, manufacturer's batch number and weight in pounds, name and address of manufacturer, storage conditions, statement of use(s), certification fee, and signature of person requesting certification. Under § 80.22, a request for certification must include a sample of the batch of color additive that is the subject of the request. The sample must be labeled to show: Name of color additive, manufacturer's batch number and quantity, and name and address of person requesting certification. Under § 80.39, the person to whom a certificate is issued must keep complete records showing the disposal of all of the color additive covered by the certificate. Such records are to be made available upon request to any accredited representative of FDA until at least 2 years after disposal of all of the color additive.

    The purpose for collecting this information is to help us assure that only safe color additives will be used in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices sold in the United States. The required information is unique to the batch of color additive that is the subject of a request for certification. The manufacturer's batch number is used for temporarily identifying a batch of color additive until FDA issues a certification lot number and for identifying a certified batch during inspections. The manufacturer's batch number also aids in tracing the disposal of a certified batch or a batch that has been denied certification for noncompliance with the color additive regulations. The manufacturer's batch weight is used for assessing the certification fee. The batch weight also is used to account for the disposal of a batch of certified or certification-denied color additive. The batch weight can be used in a recall to determine whether all unused color additive in the batch has been recalled. The manufacturer's name and address and the name and address of the person requesting certification are used to contact the person responsible should a question arise concerning compliance with the color additive regulations. Information on storage conditions pending certification is used to evaluate whether a batch of certified color additive is inadvertently or intentionally altered in a manner that would make the sample submitted for certification analysis unrepresentative of the batch. We check storage information during inspections. Information on intended uses for a batch of color additive is used to assure that a batch of certified color additive will be used in accordance with the requirements of its listing regulation. The statement of the fee on a certification request is used for accounting purposes so that a person requesting certification can be notified promptly of any discrepancies.

    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section/activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average burden per response Total hours
    80.21; Request for Certification 38 198 7,524 0.17 (10 minutes) 1,279 80.22; Sample to Accompany Request 38 198 7,524 0.05 (3 minutes) 376 Total 0.22 (13 minutes) 1,655 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR section/activity Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average burden per recordkeeping Total hours 80.39; Record of Distribution 38 198 7,524 .25 (15 minutes) 1,881 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We base our estimate on our review of the certification requests received over the past 3 fiscal years (FY). The annual burden estimate for this information collection is 3,536 hours. The estimated reporting burden for this information collection is 1,655 hours and the estimated recordkeeping burden for this information collection is 1,881 hours. From FY 2014 to FY 2016, we processed an average of 7,524 responses (requests for certification of batches of color additives) per year. There were 38 different respondents, corresponding to an average of approximately 198 responses from each respondent per year. Using information from industry personnel, we estimate that an average of 0.22 hour per response is required for reporting (preparing certification requests and accompanying samples) and an average of 0.25 hour per response is required for recordkeeping.

    Our Web-based Color Certification information system allows submitters to request color certification online, follow their submissions through the process, and obtain information on account status. The system sends back the certification results electronically, allowing submitters to sell their certified color before receiving hardcopy certificates. Any delays in the system result only from shipment of color additive samples to FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors for analysis.

    Dated: June 9, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-12328 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-E-2370] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; HETLIOZ AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for HETLIOZ and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August 14, 2017. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by December 11, 2017. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows: Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 14, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2014-E-2370 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; HETLIOZ.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its co