Federal Register Vol. 82, No.126,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 126 (July 3, 2017)

Page Range30721-30946
FR Document

82_FR_126
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 30800 - Special Conditions: Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient TemperaturePDF
82 FR 30886 - Request for Information and Comments on the Preparation of the 2019-2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program MAA104000PDF
82 FR 30944 - Notice of Open Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 30943 - Notice of Open Public RoundtablePDF
82 FR 30938 - Termination of the Preparation of an Air Tour Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Cypress National Preserve, FloridaPDF
82 FR 30798 - Special Conditions: Game Composites Ltd, GB1 Airplane; Acrobatic Category Aerodynamic StabilityPDF
82 FR 30805 - Proposed Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5602A and R-5602B; Fort Sill, OKPDF
82 FR 30807 - Extension of Port Limits of Savannah, GAPDF
82 FR 30942 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 30858 - Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program-Eastern Division-Rate Order No. WAPA-180PDF
82 FR 30856 - Loveland Area Projects-Rate Order No. WAPA-179PDF
82 FR 30868 - Product Identifier Requirements Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act-Compliance Policy; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 30743 - Safety Zone; Canalside's 4th of July Celebration; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NYPDF
82 FR 30745 - Safety Zone; Thunder on the Outer Harbor; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NYPDF
82 FR 30816 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 30942 - Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal SystemPDF
82 FR 30944 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Authority To Close Loans on an Automatic Basis Nonsupervised LendersPDF
82 FR 30867 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 30823 - Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
82 FR 30831 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
82 FR 30832 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
82 FR 30830 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
82 FR 30852 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 30854 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 30936 - United States Department of Energy and United States Department of Defense v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, et al.; United States Department of Energy and United States Department of Defense v. Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Company, et al.PDF
82 FR 30853 - Fowler, Chad N.; Notice of FilingPDF
82 FR 30849 - Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway PrescriptionsPDF
82 FR 30851 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 30848 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 30848 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 30876 - Public Stakeholder Listening Session on Strategies for Improving Parity for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder CoveragePDF
82 FR 30893 - Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract ActionsPDF
82 FR 30852 - Essential Power Massachusetts, LLC, Nautilus Hydro, LLC; Notice of Transfer of ExemptionsPDF
82 FR 30846 - Three Sisters Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 30847 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
82 FR 30850 - North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice Of Staff Review Of Compliance ProgramsPDF
82 FR 30853 - City of Tallahassee; Notice of Application for Surrender of License, Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 30855 - Moxie Freedom LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 30851 - Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Eastern Market Access ProjectPDF
82 FR 30802 - Airworthiness Directives; Rockwell Collins, Inc. Traffic Surveillance System Processing UnitPDF
82 FR 30878 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 30821 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 265-Conroe, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bauer Manufacturing LLC dba NEORig (Stationary Oil/Gas Drilling Rigs); Conroe, TexasPDF
82 FR 30821 - Foreign-Trade Zone 127-West Columbia, South Carolina; Application for Subzone; BGM America, Inc.; Marion, South CarolinaPDF
82 FR 30821 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 122-Corpus Christi, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; voestalpine Texas, LLC; (Hot Briquetted Iron and By-Products); Portland, TexasPDF
82 FR 30938 - Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardPDF
82 FR 30836 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 30841 - Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 30841 - Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 30844 - Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) ReviewsPDF
82 FR 30833 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
82 FR 30840 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
82 FR 30864 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 30936 - Cultural Property Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 30876 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research ProtectionsPDF
82 FR 30939 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; HearingPDF
82 FR 30943 - Open Meeting of the Financial Research Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 30940 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 30845 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 30945 - Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 30895 - Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion, Contra Costa County, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 30866 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control SpecialPDF
82 FR 30741 - Safety Zone; Lakewood Independence Day Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Lakewood, OHPDF
82 FR 30735 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; China Basin, San Francisco, CAPDF
82 FR 30908 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedurePDF
82 FR 30945 - Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of MeetingsPDF
82 FR 30739 - Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OHPDF
82 FR 30913 - Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control SystemsPDF
82 FR 30935 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of NebraskaPDF
82 FR 30736 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sloop Channel, Hempstead, NYPDF
82 FR 30937 - Actions Taken at June 16, 2017, MeetingPDF
82 FR 30878 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
82 FR 30864 - Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. and CST Brands, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
82 FR 30885 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Training, National Conservation Training CenterPDF
82 FR 30907 - Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber (PSF) From Korea and Taiwan; Institution of Antidumping Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationsPDF
82 FR 30901 - Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Finding No Violation of the Remedial Orders; Determination Not To Rescind the Remedial Orders; Termination of the Consolidated Enforcement and Rescission ProceedingPDF
82 FR 30747 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLCPDF
82 FR 30815 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLCPDF
82 FR 30861 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs; EPA ICR No. 0220.13, OMB Control No. 2040-0168PDF
82 FR 30920 - Nationwide Fund Advisors, et al.PDF
82 FR 30914 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Implementation of FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps)PDF
82 FR 30923 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Specify an Exception to the Manner in Which Market Maker Immediate-or-Cancel Orders Will Be HandledPDF
82 FR 30916 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Logical Ports on the Bats Equity Options PlatformPDF
82 FR 30933 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap ContractsPDF
82 FR 30931 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap ContractsPDF
82 FR 30921 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICC's Cash Investment Yield SchedulePDF
82 FR 30918 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes Relating to the CDS End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy and Price Submission Disciplinary FrameworkPDF
82 FR 30877 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 30877 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 30933 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 30926 - The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. and Green Falcon Investors I, L.P.PDF
82 FR 30749 - Air Plan Approval; FL: Hillsborough and Nassau Areas; SO2PDF
82 FR 30875 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget ApprovalsPDF
82 FR 30730 - Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 30730 - Waivers From Requirements of the Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food Rule; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 30874 - Joint Meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 30873 - Advisory Committees; Filing of Closed Meeting ReportsPDF
82 FR 30871 - Advisory Committee; Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
82 FR 30870 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food and Drug Administration Safety Communication Readership SurveyPDF
82 FR 30883 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Conservation Order for Light GeesePDF
82 FR 30871 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Food Safety SurveyPDF
82 FR 30884 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0146; Annual Report-Depredation Order for Blackbirds, Grackles, Cowbirds, Magpies, and CrowsPDF
82 FR 30819 - Notice of Intent To Certify Washington State Department of Agriculture (Washington); Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 30819 - Opportunity for Designation in the Washington Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 30817 - Opportunity for Designation in the Essex, Illinois, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 30818 - Designation for the Owensboro, Kentucky; Bloomington, Illinois; Sioux City, Iowa; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Plainview, Texas, AreasPDF
82 FR 30818 - Opportunity for Designation in the Savage, Minnesota, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 30829 - Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of the Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 30822 - Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 30820 - Opportunity for Designation in the Alabama Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 30829 - Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 30831 - Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 30822 - Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 30828 - Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of the Materials Technical Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 30910 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Ethylene Oxide StandardPDF
82 FR 30731 - Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Spirulina ExtractPDF
82 FR 30912 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 30911 - Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, Proposed Collection: Digital Inclusion Corps Pilot Project EvaluationPDF
82 FR 30722 - Freedom of Information ActPDF
82 FR 30767 - Air Plan Approval; FL: Revisions to New Source Review, Definitions and Small Business Assistance ProgramsPDF
82 FR 30814 - Air Plan Approval; FL: Revisions to New Source Review, Definitions and Small Business Assistance ProgramsPDF
82 FR 30812 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring RequirementsPDF
82 FR 30862 - EPA Information Collection Request Number 2265.03; Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Activities Associated With the SmartWay Transport PartnershipPDF
82 FR 30809 - Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery ProgramPDF
82 FR 30736 - Safety Zone; Garlock Wedding; Saint Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NYPDF
82 FR 30909 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
82 FR 30735 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Quantuck Canal, Westhampton Beach, NYPDF
82 FR 30881 - Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 30881 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Debt Collection Financial StatementPDF
82 FR 30909 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Application for Alien Employment CertificationPDF
82 FR 30882 - Idaho; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 30880 - Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 30882 - Kansas; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 30724 - Description of Office, Procedures, and Public Information; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 30896 - Large Power Transformers From Korea; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 30898 - Tapered Roller Bearings From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 30905 - Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain; Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
82 FR 30902 - Certain Lined Paper School Supplies From China and India; Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
82 FR 30758 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by ReferencePDF
82 FR 30721 - Import Reinspection of Fish of the Order SiluriformesPDF
82 FR 30774 - Corporate Credit UnionsPDF
82 FR 30741 - Safety Zones; Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display, Duluth Harbor Basin, Duluth, MNPDF
82 FR 30736 - Safety Zones; Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display, Siskiwit Bay, Cornucopia, WIPDF
82 FR 30776 - Federal Home Loan Bank Capital RequirementsPDF
82 FR 30770 - Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Mendocino County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source PermitsPDF

Issue

82 126 Monday, July 3, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30816-30817 2017-13976
Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel: Secondary Review, 30866-30867 2017-13925 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30867-30868 2017-13973 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: China Basin, San Francisco, CA, 30735 2017-13923 Quantuck Canal, Westhampton Beach, NY, 30735-30736 2017-13854 Sloop Channel, Hempstead, NY, 30736 2017-13915 Safety Zones: Bay Village Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH, 30739-30741 2017-13919 Canalside's 4th of July Celebration, Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY, 30743-30745 2017-13978 Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display, Siskiwit Bay, Cornucopia, WI, 30736 2017-13563 Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display, Duluth Harbor Basin, Duluth, MN, 30741 2017-13575 Garlock Wedding, Saint Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NY, 30736-30738 2017-13856 Lakewood Independence Day Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Lakewood, OH, 30741-30743 2017-13924 Thunder on Outer Harbor, Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY, 30745-30747 2017-13977 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board RULES Freedom of Information Act, 30722-30724 2017-13863 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See

Western Area Power Administration

Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings: Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors, 30845-30846 2017-13928 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Mendocino County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits, 30770-30773 2017-13188 FL: Revisions to New Source Review, Definitions and Small Business Assistance Programs, 30767-30770 2017-13862 Florida; Hillsborough and Nassau Areas; SO2 Attainment Demonstration, 30749-30758 2017-13892 New Jersey; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference, 30758-30767 2017-13657 Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLC, 30747-30749 2017-13907 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring Requirements, 30812-30814 2017-13860 FL: Revisions to New Source Review, Definitions and Small Business Assistance Programs, 30814-30815 2017-13861 Kentucky; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program, 30809-30812 2017-13858 Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLC, 30815 2017-13906 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Clean Water Act State-Assumed Programs, 30861-30862 2017-13905 SmartWay Transport Partnership, 30862-30864 2017-13859 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Rockwell Collins, Inc. Traffic Surveillance System Processing Unit, 30802-30804 2017-13948 Restricted Areas; Establishments: R-5602A and R-5602B; Fort Sill, OK, 30805-30807 2017-13990 Special Conditions: Game Composites Ltd, GB1 Airplane; Acrobatic Category Aerodynamic Stability, 30798-30800 2017-13991 Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature, 30800-30802 2017-14043 NOTICES Air Tour Management Plans, Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Big Cypress National Preserve, FL; Termination of the Preparations, 30938-30939 2017-13992 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Debt Collection Financial Statement, 30881 2017-13847 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Arkansas, 30881-30882 2017-13849 Kansas, 30882-30883 2017-13842 Major Disaster Declarations: Idaho; Amendment No. 1, 30882 2017-13845 Meetings: Technical Mapping Advisory Council, 30880 2017-13843 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Yuba County Water Agency, 30849-30850 2017-13964 Combined Filings, 30848-30849, 30851-30855 2017-13961 2017-13962 2017-13963 2017-13967 2017-13968 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Eastern Market Access Project, 30851-30852 2017-13951 Exemption Transfers: Essential Power Massachusetts, LLC; Nautilus Hydro, LLC, 30852 2017-13957 Filings: Chad N. Fowler, 30853 2017-13965 Hydroelectric Applications: City of Tallahassee, 30853-30854 2017-13953 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Moxie Freedom, LLC, 30855-30856 2017-13952 Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities: Three Sisters Irrigation District, 30846-30847 2017-13956 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 30847-30848 2017-13955 Staff Review of Compliance Programs: North American Electric Reliability Corp., 30850-30851 2017-13954 Federal Financial Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council RULES Description of Office, Procedures, and Public Information; Correction, 30724-30730 2017-13723 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency PROPOSED RULES Federal Home Loan Bank Capital Requirements, 30776-30798 2017-13560 Federal Housing Finance Board Federal Housing Finance Board PROPOSED RULES Federal Home Loan Bank Capital Requirements, 30776-30798 2017-13560 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 30940-30942 2017-13929 Hearing, 30939-30940 2017-13931 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Applications: Discontinuance or Modification of Railroad Signal System; Approval, 30942 2017-13975 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 30864 2017-13935 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. and CST Brands, Inc., 30864-30866 2017-13912 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Report—Depredation Order for Blackbirds, Grackles, Cowbirds, Magpies, and Crows, 30884-30885 2017-13881 Application for Training, National Conservation Training Center, 30885-30886 2017-13911 Conservation Order for Light Geese, 30883-30884 2017-13883 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments; Extension of Comment Period, 30730-30731 2017-13889 Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification: Spirulina Extract, 30731-30734 2017-13867 Waivers From Requirements of Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food Rule; Correction, 30730 2017-13888 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30875-30876 2017-13890 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Food and Drug Administration Safety Communication Readership Survey, 30870-30871 2017-13884 Food Safety Survey, 30871-30873 2017-13882 Charter Renewals: Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee, 30871 2017-13885 Filing of Advisory Committees Closed Meeting Reports, 30873 2017-13886 Guidance: Product Identifier Requirements Under Drug Supply Chain Security Act: Compliance Policy, 30868-30870 2017-13979 Meetings: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 30874-30875 2017-13887 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service RULES Imports: Reinspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes, 30721-30722 2017-13644 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Bauer Manufacturing, LLC dba NEORig, Foreign-Trade Zone 265, Conroe, TX, 30821-30822 2017-13945 voestalpine Texas, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 122 , Corpus Christi, TX, 30821 2017-13943 Subzone Applications: BGM America, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 127, West Columbia, SC, 30821 2017-13944 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Designation Opportunities: Alabama Area, 30820-30821 2017-13873 Essex, IL, Area, 30817 2017-13878 Savage, MN, Area, 30818-30819 2017-13876 Washington Area, 30819 2017-13879 Designations: Owensboro, KY; Bloomington, IL; Sioux City, IA; Grand Forks, ND; and Plainview, TX, Areas, 30818 2017-13877 Proposed Certifications: Washington State Department of Agriculture, 30819-30820 2017-13880 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Meetings: Public Stakeholder Listening Session on Strategies for Improving Parity for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Coverage, 30876-30877 2017-13959 Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, 30876 2017-13932
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Export Privileges; Denials: Edwin Navarro Makasiar II, 30831-30832 2017-13971 Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira, 30832-30833 2017-13970 Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard a/k/a Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini, et al.; renewal, 30823-30828 2017-13972 Manuel Morales, 30830-30831 2017-13969 Meetings: Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee, 30829-30830 2017-13872 Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 30822-30823 2017-13874 Materials Technical Advisory Committee, 30828-30829 2017-13869 Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee, 30822 2017-13870 Technical Advisory Committee, 30831 2017-13871 Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 30829 2017-13875 Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Digital Inclusion Corps Pilot Project Evaluation, 30911 2017-13864 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

See

Reclamation Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 30836-30840 2017-13941 Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 30841-30843 2017-13939 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 30844-30845 2017-13938 Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 30833-30836 2017-13937 Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China, 30841 2017-13940 Sunset Reviews, 30840-30841 2017-13936 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 30901-30902 2017-13909 Certain Lined Paper School Supplies From China and India; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 30902-30905 2017-13711 Large Power Transformers From Korea; Institution of Five-Year Review, 30896-30898 2017-13719 Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and Taiwan, 30907-30908 2017-13910 Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 30905-30907 2017-13712 Tapered Roller Bearings From China; Institution of Five-Year Review, 30898-30901 2017-13713 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 30908-30909 2017-13921 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Air Act, 30909 2017-13855 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Alien Employment Certification, 30909-30910 2017-13846 Ethylene Oxide Standard, 30910-30911 2017-13868 National Credit National Credit Union Administration PROPOSED RULES Corporate Credit Unions, 30774-30776 2017-13642 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute; Amendment, 30877 2017-13895 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 30877 2017-13896 National Mediation National Mediation Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30912-30913 2017-13865 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control Systems, 30913-30914 2017-13918 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Requests for Information: Preparation of 2019-2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 30886-30892 2017-13998 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion, Contra Costa County, CA, 30895-30896 2017-13926 Quarterly Status Reports: Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions, 30893-30894 2017-13958 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30933 2017-13894 Applications: Boston Consulting Group, Inc. and Green Falcon Investors I, LP, 30926-30931 2017-13893 Nationwide Fund Advisors, et al., 30920-30921 2017-13904 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 30916-30918 2017-13901 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 30914-30916 2017-13903 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 30921-30923, 30931-30935 2017-13898 2017-13899 2017-13900 ICE Clear Europe, Ltd., 30918-30920 2017-13897 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 30923-30925 2017-13902 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: Nebraska, 30935-30936 2017-13916 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Cultural Property Advisory Committee, 30936 2017-13933 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30878 2017-13946 Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: List of Facilities That Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 30878-30879 2017-13913 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Settlement Agreements: Department of Energy and Defense v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., et al., etc., 30936-30937 2017-13966 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Meetings: Actions Taken at June 16, 2017, 30937-30938 2017-13914 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Establishments: Tennessee Valley Authority Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application, 30938 2017-13942 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

NOTICES Meetings: Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee, 30942-30943 2017-13982
Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Meetings: Financial Research Advisory Committee, 30943 2017-13930 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection PROPOSED RULES Port Limits; Extensions: Savannah, GA, 30807-30808 2017-13983 U.S. China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission NOTICES Meetings, 30943-30944 2017-13993 2017-13995 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Authority To Close Loans on Automatic Basis Nonsupervised Lenders, 30944-30945 2017-13974 Meetings: Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee, 30945-30946 2017-13927 Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board, 30945 2017-13920 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Rate Orders: Loveland Area Projects, 30856-30858 2017-13980 Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program: Eastern Division, 30858-30861 2017-13981 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.

82 126 Monday, July 3, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 557 [Docket No. FSIS-2017-0024] Import Reinspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes AGENCY:

Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notification of regulatory enforcement.

SUMMARY:

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing that starting August 2, 2017, all shipments of imported Siluriformes fish and fish products entering the United States (U.S.) must be presented at an Official Import Inspection Establishment for reinspection by FSIS personnel.

DATES:

Beginning August 2, 2017, FSIS will enforce the regulations in 9 CFR part 557 (9 CFR 557.1-557.8, 557.10-557.19 and 557.24-557.26). All shipments of imported Siluriformes fish and fish products must be presented at an Official Import Inspection Establishment for reinspection by FSIS personnel beginning August 2, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roberta Wagner, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On December 2, 2015, FSIS published the final rule, “Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived from Such Fish,” establishing a mandatory inspection program for fish of the order Siluriformes (80 FR 75590). The final rule set forth regulations in accordance with the provisions of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to include all fish of the order Siluriformes as amenable species and specifically provided for the inspection of Siluriformes fish and fish products to be used as human food. The regulations include a new part 557 (9 CFR 557.1-557.8, 557.10-557.19 and 557.24-557.26), “Importation,” which, among other things, requires that all fish and fish products from any foreign country be reinspected before entering the U.S. (9 CFR 557.6(a)(1)).

The final rule was effective on March 1, 2016, but provided an 18-month transitional period until September 1, 2017, to ensure an orderly transition from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory oversight to the FSIS mandatory fish inspection program. During the transitional period, the Agency is exercising broad discretion in enforcing the new regulatory requirements, except when product is determined to be adulterated (e.g., the product contains a violative residue or is contaminated) or misbranded (e.g., the product is missing a label).

The final rule stated that during the transitional period, imported fish and fish products would be reinspected and subjected to species and residue testing on at least a quarterly basis for each foreign establishment eligible to export fish to the U.S. Further, as discussed in the preamble of the final rule, at the end of the 18-month transitional period, all imported Siluriformes fish and fish product shipments would be reinspected, just as all imported meat and poultry products are reinspected (80 FR 75608). FSIS began selecting shipments of imported Siluriformes for reinspection and residue testing on April 15, 2016.

Reinspection of All Imported Shipments of Siluriformes Fish and Fish Products

The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31 Stat. 135, enacted May 5, 2017, directs FSIS to begin reinspecting all imported Siluriformes fish and fish product shipments upon the date the Act is enacted (https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/05/03/CREC-2017-05-03-bk2.pdf). FSIS is issuing this notification announcing that beginning August 2, 2017, all shipments of imported Siluriformes fish and fish product must be presented at an Official Import Inspection Establishment for reinspection by FSIS personnel.

To apply for import reinspection, applicants, typically the Importer of Record, must submit a paper or an electronic inspection application form (FSIS Form 9540-1) to FSIS in advance of the shipment's arrival, but no later than when the entry is filed with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (9 CFR 557.5). The applicant must identify, on the application, the official import inspection establishment where reinspection will occur. The paper import inspection application is available on line at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/a8eead0d-23c3-428e-937f-a8a05b09edbb/FSIS-9540-1-Import-Inspection-Application.pdf? MOD=AJPERES.

After August 2, 2017, FSIS will begin taking action in regard to imported fish product that has bypassed FSIS import reinspection, but entered commerce, i.e. “failure to present” (FTP) product.

FSIS will be posting reinspection guidance materials on its Siluriformes Web page https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/inspection/siluriformes.

A list of Official Import Inspection Establishments available to reinspect Siluriformes fish is available on the FSIS Siluriformes Web page https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/b58fa982-8029-4ccb-88c1-1663f32070d9/Siluriformes-I-Houses.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

FSIS also strongly encourages importers and brokers to communicate and coordinate closely with your FSIS District Office, to facilitate full compliance prior to August 2, 2017 https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/informational/districtoffices.

In addition, the Agency will announce any additional information in the Agency's Constituent Update (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/newsletters/constituentupdates).

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Additional Public Notification

FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS will also make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

Done at Washington, DC, on June 26, 2017. Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-13644 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 10 CFR Part 1703 [Docket No. DNFSB-2017-0001] RIN 3155-AA00 Freedom of Information Act AGENCY:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Improvement Act of 2016 requires each Federal agency to issue regulations implementing its statutory provisions. In this final rule, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board amends its regulations to comply with the statutory direction.

DATES:

This rule is effective on July 26, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Biggins, General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 694-7000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) implements the Freedom of Information Act through its regulations found at 10 CFR part 1703. This rule amends the DNFSB's regulations to incorporate certain changes made to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (2016)). The FOIA Improvement Act also requires agency regulations to address dispute resolution procedures and to provide notification to requestors about the availability of dispute resolution services. The FOIA Improvement Act requires the DNFSB to issue regulations which incorporate the changes made by the FOIA Improvement Act. This rule updates the DNFSB regulations in 10 CFR part 1703 to reflect those statutory changes.

The FOIA Improvement Act requires a change to the DNFSB's fee schedule, which will be updated in a separate notice. The fee schedule was last published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2015, 80 FR 52174. Pursuant to the FOIA Improvement Act, the DNFSB will not assess any search fees if it has failed to comply with any time limit for response to the request absent an extension of its time limit.

The FOIA Improvement Act requires agencies to designate a FOIA Public Liaison and also elevates the responsibility of the Chief FOIA Officer. Additionally the Act adds to the agency record reporting requirements. The DNFSB will provide this information through its FOIA electronic reading room. The Chief FOIA officer is the DNFSB Deputy General Manager, and will designate a FOIA Public Liaison. Information about how to contact the FOIA Public Liaison will be available through the DNFSB FOIA electronic reading room.

The DNFSB is issuing this rule as a final rule without the opportunity for public comment. The agency finds, for good cause, that allowing for notice and public comment is unnecessary. The changes made to the DNFSB implementing regulations reduce the burden on requestors, provide additional dispute resolution alternatives, and require the DNFSB to meet its response deadlines or waive the fees in whole or in part. The changes to the regulations are mandated by statute. The DNFSB has also reviewed public comments provided to other Federal agencies that have issued their regulations for public comment, and the DNFSB has used those comments to inform its regulations.

II. Regulatory Analysis Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, agencies must consider the impact of their rulemakings on “small entities” (small businesses, small organizations, and local governments). The DNFSB has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule decreases the regulatory burden for requestors under FOIA, waives fees under certain circumstances, and provides additional dispute resolution options. Additionally, the agency received 21 FOIA requests in fiscal year 2016 and charged $0.00 in fees. The DNFSB therefore determines and certifies that these amendments to its FOIA implementing regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) establishes certain requirements when an agency conducts or sponsors a “collection of information.” 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. The amendments to the DNFSB regulations implementing FOIA are required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The amendments to the DNFSB regulations do not require or request information, but rather, explain the agency's FOIA procedures. Submitting a request for agency records under FOIA is voluntary, so the information collected from requestors is not covered by the restrictions of the PRA.

Executive Order 12988 and Executive Order 13132—Federalism

According to Executive Orders 12988 and 13132, agencies must state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations. The amendments to the agency's FOIA implementing regulations affect only FOIA requests submitted to the agency, and therefore, have no effect on preemption of State, tribal, or local government laws or otherwise have federalism implications.

Congressional Review Act

This rule will not result in and is not likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. As such, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact

The proposed regulations amend the DNFSB procedures for processing FOIA requests. The procedural changes to the FOIA implementing regulations will not result in significant impacts affecting the quality of the human environment, unavoidable adverse environmental effects, rejection of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, or irreversible or irretrievable commitments of environmental resources. The agency has not consulted with any other agencies in making this determination.

III. Section by Section Analysis Section 1703.103 Requests for Board Records Available Through the Public Reading Room

Paragraph (a) is revised to identify the transition from a physical public reading room to an electronic public reading room. The FOIA Improvement Act mandates that certain records previously made available to the public through a public reading room, now be available for public inspection in an electronic format. The DNFSB has been in the practice for several years to make its FOIA records publicly available in an electronic format on its public Web site (https://www.dnfsb.gov). The DNFSB FOIA records will be available through its electronic reading room on its Web site (https://www.dnfsb.gov/foia-reading-room).

Section 1703.104 Board Records Exempt From Public Disclosure

The Board is removing this section as unnecessary. The Board will apply the exemptions allowed by the FOIA, as amended, in determining whether to withhold a document from disclosure pursuant to a FOIA request. The re-statement of the FOIA exemptions in its regulation does not expand or narrow the scope of the exemptions and is unnecessary for either implementation or interpretation.

Section 1703.107 Fees for Record Requests

The Board is amending this section to make explicit the waiver of fees if the Board does not meet its response deadlines under the FOIA Improvement Act.

Section 1703.109 Procedure for Appeal or Denial of Requests for Board Records and Denial of Requests for Fee Waiver or Reduction

The Board is amending this section to provide notice of availability of assistance from the agency FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government Information Services. The DNFSB will work with the Office of Government Information Services on any issue referred to them for alternative dispute resolution. The FOIA Improvement Act provides the right of a requestor to seek assistance with the FOIA request or to seek dispute resolution services. The section is also being amended to allow an appeal from an adverse decision on access within 90 days of the denial.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 1703

Freedom of information.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board amends 10 CFR Chapter 17, part 1703 as follows:

PART 1703—PUBLIC INFORMATION AND REQUESTS 1. The authority citation for part 1703 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 2286b.

2. Amend section 1703.103 by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 1703.103 Requests for agency records available through the electronic reading room.

(a) The DNFSB will maintain an electronic reading room on its public Web site at https://www.dnfsb.gov/foia-reading-room. Records may be obtained by accessing and downloading them from the electronic reading room. The electronic reading room is intended to provide easy accessibility to a substantial collection of the agency's records. The agency considers the records available through its electronic reading room to have been placed in the public domain.

(b) The public records of the agency that are available in the electronic reading room or through links from the electronic reading room include:

§ 1703.104 [Removed and Reserved]
3. Remove and reserve § 1703.104. 4. Amend § 1703.107 by adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
§ 1703.107 Fees for record requests.

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) The Board will not assess any fees if it has failed to meet its deadlines in § 1703.108.

5. Amend § 1703.109 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1703.109 Procedure for appeal of denial of requests for board records and denial of requests for fee waiver or reduction.

(a)(1) A person whose request for access to records in whole or in part may appeal that determination to the General Counsel within 90 days of the determination. A person denied a fee waiver or reduction may appeal that determination to the General Counsel within 30 days. The person may also seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison of the agency. Appeals filed pursuant to this section must be in writing, directed to the General Counsel at the address indicated in § 1703.105(b)(2), and clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” Such an appeal received by the Board not addressed and marked as indicated in this paragraph will be so addressed and marked by Board personnel as soon as it is properly identified and then will be forwarded to the General Counsel.

(2) The General Counsel shall make a determination with respect to any appeal within 20 working days after the receipt of such appeal. If, on appeal, the denial of the request for records or fee reduction is in whole or in part upheld, the General Counsel shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination.

(3) The requestor may request that the FOIA Public Liaison refer the denial to be reviewed through dispute resolution services or may request the Office of Government Information Services within the National Archives and Records Administration to review the denial.

Dated: June 27, 2017. Sean Sullivan, Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2017-13863 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL 12 CFR Part 1101 [Docket No. FFIEC-2017-0002] Description of Office, Procedures, and Public Information; Correction AGENCY:

Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).

ACTION:

Interim final rule with request for comments; correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC or Council) is correcting an interim final rule announcing revisions and additions to its information disclosure regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA Regulations). This interim final rule replaces the interim final rule published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2016. The Council invites comments on this interim final rule revising its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These revisions implement recent statutory amendments to the FOIA that are mandated by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, as well as update the language of the Council's regulations to more closely mirror the language of the FOIA and to reflect the Council's current FOIA procedures. This interim final rule also corrects three typographical errors that occurred when the Council's FOIA Regulations were last amended by a final rule appearing in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010.

DATES:

Effective July 3, 2017. Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this interim final rule, identified by “Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council: Docket No. FFIEC-2017-0002,” by any of the following methods:

Electronic submission of comments: Interested persons may 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 Council to make them 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.

Facsimile: (703) 562-6446.

Mail: Ms. Judith Dupre, Executive Secretary, FFIEC, Attn: Executive Secretary, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room B-7081a, Arlington, VA, 22226-3550.

Public Inspection of Comments: In general, the Council will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them on the www.regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Please be advised that your comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and available for public inspection. Please do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this notice of proposed rulemaking electronically by following the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Judith Dupre, Executive Secretary, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, via telephone: (703) 516-5590, or via email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Council 1 is publishing an interim final rule revising its information disclosure regulations under the Freedom of Information Act 2 (FOIA Regulations). On June 30, 2016, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 3 (FOIA Improvement Act). Among other things, section 3 of the FOIA Improvement Act required each Federal agency to revise its disclosure regulations and procedures for processing FOIA requests in order to conform to the substantive amendments made by section 2 of the FOIA Improvement Act by December 27, 2016. Accordingly, the Council is implementing the required substantive and procedural changes necessary to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act's amendments (such as changing the appeal deadline from 10 working days to 90 days and providing additional limitations on the fees charged by the Council). In addition, the Council is making certain changes to its FOIA Regulations to reflect revisions brought about by prior amendments to the FOIA that were incorporated into the Council's procedures and to make the FOIA process easier for the public to navigate (such as providing an email address where administrative appeals may be submitted electronically). In drafting these amendments to the FOIA Regulations, the Council consulted the “Guidance for Agency FOIA Regulations” issued by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office for Information Policy.

1 The members of the Council are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the State Liaison Committee.

2 5 U.S.C. 552.

3 Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (June 30, 2016).

The Council is also correcting technical and typographical errors that occurred when the Council's FOIA Regulations were last revised and published as a final rule in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71014). That publication resulted in the inadvertent duplication of two provisions in the Council's FOIA Regulations and the inadvertent omission of one provision. Accordingly, this interim final rule removes the duplicative provisions and reinserts the provision that was inadvertently deleted when the Council's FOIA Regulations were last amended in 2010. The following is a section-by-section discussion of the changes.

The Council initially published a final rule announcing the above changes on December 27, 2016 (81 FR 94937), and is hereby correcting that interim final rule to allow for a public comment period and to implement the changes set forth below.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

This interim final rule amends the Council's FOIA Regulations in 12 CFR 1101.4, as described below.

To implement the mandatory requirements made by the FOIA Improvement Act, the Council is revising § 1101.4(a) to clarify that the Council records available for public inspection pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) include records released for a FOIA request three or more times or that are likely to become the subject of subsequent FOIA requests, and that such records will be made available in electronic format.

In accordance with the amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act, the Council is also revising § 1101.4(b)(1) and (2) to reflect that information will only be withheld if the Council reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption or if disclosure is prohibited by law, and to reflect that the deliberative process privilege only protects records that were created less than 25 years before the date when the records were requested.

In order to implement the recent amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act and prior amendments to the FOIA, the Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(A) to provide that, whenever the Council extends the 20-day response time for a FOIA request by more than ten working days due to unusual circumstances, the Council's FOIA Public Liaison is available to assist the requester in modifying the scope of their FOIA request and that the requester may seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”) or from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison.

The Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(B)(3) to provide that all determination letters from the Executive Secretary will advise requesters of their right to seek assistance from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison, which reflects a procedural change required by the FOIA Improvement Act.

To implement the FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA with respect to appeals, the Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(B)(4) and (b)(3)(vi) to provide that, in the case of an adverse determination, requesters must be informed of the right to seek dispute resolution services from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS, and that requesters have 90 days to file an administrative appeal (extended from the prior deadline of 10 working days). Relatedly, in order to mirror the more expansive language of the FOIA and to reflect the Council's current practice, the Council is updating the language in § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(B)(4) and (b)(3)(vi) to clarify that a requester has the right to administratively appeal any “adverse determination” (not just to appeal the denial or partial denial of a request for records). The new language in paragraph (b)(3)(v)(B)(4) of this section also provides examples of the adverse determinations that may be appealed. In paragraph (b)(3)(vi) of this section, the Council is adding language to inform members of the public that they have the additional option to submit administrative appeals via email and providing an email address for members of the public to use to send such administrative appeals.

The Council is amending § 1101.4(b)(4)(i) to reflect that records will also be made available to requesters for public inspection in electronic format as required by the FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA.

The FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA restrict an agency's ability to charge search or duplication fees in certain circumstances. The Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(5)(ii) introductory text and (b)(5)(ii)(G) to reflect the statutory restrictions on charging fees.

In § 1101.4(b)(5)(ii)(E), the Council is replacing the words “Council personnel” with “the Council's FOIA Public Liaison,” in order to identify a specific point of contact whom members of the public can contact.

The Council is also correcting three technical errors that occurred when the Council's FOIA Regulations were revised in 2010. Section 1101.4(b)(5)(iii)(A) and (b)(5)(iv) were both amended as published in a final rule in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71014).4 However, both the original version and the revised version of these paragraphs inadvertently remained in the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71014). Accordingly, the Council is deleting the first appearance of paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A), deleting the second appearance of paragraph (b)(5)(iv), and making minor grammatical edits to the current paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A). In addition, the Council is reinserting § 1101.4(b)(5)(v), which was inadvertently removed from the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71014) due to a publication error.

4 The amendments to § 1101.4(b)(5)(iii)(A) and (b)(5)(iv) were subject to public notice and comment in the notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in the Federal Register on September 3, 2010 (75 FR 54052).

III. Request for Comments

The Committee invites comment on all aspects of the interim final rule.

IV. Administrative Law Matters A. Administrative Procedure Act

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), notice and comment are not required prior to the issuance of a final rule if an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” As discussed above, this interim final rule implements the substantive amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act. Congress provided Federal agencies with no discretion in amending their information disclosure regulations to comply with the statutory amendments made to the FOIA, and required that such conforming amendments become effective by December 27, 2016. Additionally, the three revisions fixing prior publishing errors are merely technical corrections to provisions that were already subject to public notice and the opportunity to comment. The other revisions bring the language of the Council's FOIA Regulations into alignment with the more expansive language of the FOIA, reflect the Council's current procedures, and provide the public with expanded benefits.

Given that the substantive amendments to the Council's FOIA Regulations are mandated by the FOIA Improvement Act and were required to be implemented by December 27, 2016, and that the other amendments are technical in nature or expand the rights of the public, the Council for good cause finds that prior notice and comment on this rulemaking is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). For these same reasons, the Council finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). While the interim final rule is effective immediately upon publication, the Council is inviting public comment on the interim final rule during a 60-day period and will consider all comments in developing a final rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Because the Council has determined for good cause that a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule is unnecessary, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this final rule. 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is inapplicable because this interim final rule does not create any new, or revise any existing, information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

D. Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public. Law. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all rules published after January 1, 2000. In light of this requirement, the Council has sought to present the interim final rule in a simple, comprehensible, and straightforward manner. The Council invites comment on whether the Council could take additional steps to make the rule easier to understand.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1101

FOIA exemptions, Freedom of information, Schedule of fees, Waivers or reductions of fees.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Council amends 12 CFR part 1101 as follows:

PART 1101—DESCRIPTION OF OFFICE, PROCEDURES, PUBLIC INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 1101 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552; 12 U.S.C. 3307.

2. Revise § 1101.4 to read as follows:
§ 1101.4 Disclosure of information, policies, and records.

(a) Statements of policy published in the Federal Register or available for public inspection in an electronic format; indices. (1) Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(l), the Council publishes general rules, policies and interpretations in the Federal Register.

(2) Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), policies and interpretations adopted by the Council, including instructions to Council staff affecting members of the public are available for public inspection in an electronic format at the office of the Executive Secretary of the Council, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room B-7081a, Arlington, VA, 22226-3550, during regular business hours. Policies and interpretations of the Council may be withheld from disclosure under the principles stated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(3) Copies of all records, regardless of form or format, are available for public inspection in an electronic format if they:

(i) Have been released to any person under paragraph (b) of this section; and

(ii)(A) Because of the nature of their subject matter, the Council determines that they have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; or

(B) They have been requested three or more times.

(4) An index of the records referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section is available for public inspection in an electronic format.

(b) Other records of the Council available to the public upon request; procedures—(1) General rule and exemptions. Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3), all other records of the Council are available to the public upon request, except to the extent exempted from disclosure as provided in 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and described in this paragraph (b)(1), or if disclosure is prohibited by law. Unless specifically authorized by the Council, or as set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the following records, and portions thereof, are not available to the public:

(i) A record, or portion thereof, which is specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and which is, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.

(ii) A record, or portion thereof, relating solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

(iii) A record, or portion thereof, specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552b), provided that such statute:

(A) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or

(B) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.

(iv) A record, or portion thereof, containing trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.

(v) An intra-agency or interagency memorandum or letter that would not be routinely available by law to a private party in litigation, including, but not limited to, memoranda, reports, and other documents prepared by the personnel of the Council or its constituent agencies, and records of deliberations of the Council and discussions of meetings of the Council, any Council Committee, or Council staff, that are not subject to 5 U.S.C. 552b (the Government in the Sunshine Act). In applying this exemption, the Council will not withhold records based on the deliberative process privilege if the records were created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested.

(vi) A personnel, medical, or similar record, including a financial record, or any portion thereof, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(vii) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7), including records relating to a proceeding by a financial institution's State or Federal regulatory agency for the issuance of a cease-anddesist order, or order of suspension or removal, or assessment of a civil money penalty and the granting, withholding, or revocation of any approval, permission, or authority.

(viii) A record, or portion thereof, containing, relating to, or derived from an examination, operating, or condition report prepared by, or on behalf of, or for the use of any State or Federal agency directly or indirectly responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.

(ix) A record, or portion thereof, which contains or is related to geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

(2) Discretionary release of exempt information. Notwithstanding the applicability of an exemption, the Council will only withhold records requested under this paragraph (b) if the Council reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption listed in 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. In addition, whenever the Council determines that full disclosure of a requested record is not possible, the Council will consider whether partial disclosure is possible and will take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release the nonexempt portion of a record. The Council or the Council's designee may elect, under the circumstances of a particular request, to disclose all or a portion of any requested record where permitted by law. Such disclosure has no precedential significance.

(3) Procedure for records request-(i) Initial request. Requests for records shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Secretary of the Council:

(A) By sending a letter to: FFIEC, Attn: Executive Secretary, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room B-708la, Arlington, VA, 22226-3550. Both the mailing envelope and the request should be marked “Freedom of Information Request,” “FOIA Request,” or the like; or

(B) By facsimile clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Request,” “FOIA Request,” or the like to the Executive Secretary at (703) 562-6446; or

(C) By email to the address provided on the FFIEC's World Wide Web page, found at: http://www.ffiec.gov. Requests must reasonably describe the records sought.

(ii) Contents of request. All requests should contain the following information:

(A) The name and mailing address of the requester, an electronic mail address, if available, and the telephone number at which the requester may be reached during normal business hours;

(B) A statement as to whether the information is intended for commercial use, and whether the requester is an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or news media representative; and

(C) A statement agreeing to pay all applicable fees, or a statement identifying any desired fee limitation, or a request for a waiver or reduction of fees that satisfies paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(H) of this section.

(iii) Defective requests. The Council need not accept or process a request that does not reasonably describe the records requested or that does not otherwise comply with the requirements of this section. The Executive Secretary may return a defective request specifying the deficiency. The requester may submit a corrected request, which will be treated as an initial request.

(iv) Expedited processing. (A) Where a person requesting expedited access to records has demonstrated a compelling need for the records, or where the Executive Secretary has determined to expedite the response, the Executive Secretary shall process the request as soon as practicable. To show a compelling need for expedited processing, the requester shall provide a statement demonstrating that:

(1) Failure to obtain the records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or

(2) The requester is primarily engaged in information dissemination as a main professional occupation or activity, and there is urgency to inform the public of the government activity involved in the request.

(B) The requester's statement must be certified to be true and correct to the best of the person's knowledge and belief and explain in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing.

(C) The formality of the certification required to obtain expedited treatment may be waived by the Executive Secretary as a matter of administrative discretion.

(v) Response to initial requests. (A) Except where the Executive Secretary has determined to expedite the processing of a request, the Executive Secretary will respond by mail or electronic mail to all properly submitted initial requests within 20 working days of receipt. The time for response may be extended up to 10 additional working days in unusual circumstances, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B), where the Council has provided written notice to the requester setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. In addition, where the extension of the 20-day time limit exceeds 10 working days, as described by the FOIA, the requester shall be provided with an opportunity to modify the scope of the FOIA request so that it can be processed within that time frame or provided an opportunity to arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified request. To aid the requester, the Council's FOIA Public Liaison is available to assist the requester for this purpose and in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the Council. The Council's FOIA Public Liaison's contact information is available at http://www.ffiec.gov/foia.htm. The requester may also seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.

(B) In response to a request that reasonably describes the records sought and otherwise satisfies the requirements of this section, a search shall be conducted of records in existence and maintained by the Council on the date of receipt of the request, and a review made of any responsive information located. The Executive Secretary shall notify the requester of:

(1) The Executive Secretary's determination of the response to the request;

(2) The reasons for the determination;

(3) The right of the requester to seek assistance from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison; and

(4) When an adverse determination is made (including a determination that the requested record is exempt, in whole or in part; the request does not reasonably describe the records sought; the information requested is not a record subject to the FOIA; the requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; the requested record is not readily reproducible in the form or format sought by the requester; a fee waiver request or other fee categorization matter is denied; and a request for expedited processing is denied), the Executive Secretary will advise the requester in writing of that determination and will further advise the requester:

(i) If the denial is in part or in whole;

(ii) The name and title of each person responsible for the denial (when other than the person signing the notification);

(iii) The exemptions relied on for the denial;

(iv) The right of the requester to appeal any adverse determination to the Chairman of the Council within 90 days following the date of issuance of the notification, as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(vi) of this section; and

(v) The right of the requester to seek dispute resolution services from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services.

(vi) Appeals of responses to initial requests. A requester may appeal any adverse determination in writing, within 90 days of the date of issuance of the adverse determination. Appeals should refer to the date and tracking number of the original request and the date of the Council's initial ruling. Appeals should include an explanation of the basis for the appeal. Appeals shall be submitted to the Chairman of the Council:

(A) By sending a letter to: FFIEC, Attn: Executive Secretary, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room B-7081a, Arlington, VA, 22226-3550. Both the mailing envelope and the request should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal,” “FOIA Appeal,” or the like; or

(B) By facsimile clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal,” “FOIA Appeal,” or the like to the Executive Secretary at (703) 562-6446; or

(C) By email with the subject line marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal,” “FOIA Appeal,” or the like to [email protected]

(vii) Council response to appeals. The Chairman of the Council, or another member designated by the Chairman, will respond to all properly submitted appeals within 20 working days of actual receipt of the appeal by the Executive Secretary. The time for response may be extended up to 10 additional working days, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B), or for other periods by agreement between the requester and the Chairman or the Chairman's designee.

(4) Procedure for access to records if request is granted. (i) When a request for access to records is granted, in whole or in part, a copy of the records to be disclosed will be promptly delivered to the requester or made available for inspection in an electronic format, whichever was requested. Inspection of records, or duplication and delivery of copies of records, will be arranged so as not to interfere with their use by the Council and other users of the records.

(ii) When delivery to the requester is to be made, copies of requested records shall be sent to the requester by regular U.S. mail to the address indicated in the request, unless the Executive Secretary deems it appropriate to send the documents by another means.

(iii) The Council shall provide a copy of the record in any form or format requested if the record is readily reproducible by the Council in that form or format, but the Council need not provide more than one copy of any record to a requester.

(iv) By arrangement with the requester, the Executive Secretary may elect to send the responsive records electronically if a substantial portion of the records is in electronic format. If the information requested is subject to disclosure under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, it will not be sent by electronic means unless reasonable security measures can be established.

(5) Fees for document search, review, and duplication; waiver and reduction of fee—(i) Definitions—(A) Direct costs means those expenditures which the Council actually incurs in searching for, duplicating, and reviewing documents to respond to a FOIA request.

(B) Search means all time spent looking for material that is responsive to a request, including page-by-page or line-by-line identification of material within documents. Searches may be done manually or by computer using existing programming.

(C) Duplication means the process of making a copy of a document necessary to respond to a FOIA request. Such copies can take the form of paper copy, microfilm, audiovisual records, or machine readable records (e.g., magnetic tape or computer disk).

(D) Review means the process of examining documents located in response to a request that is for a commercial use (see paragraph (b)(5)(i)(E) of this section) to determine whether any portion of any document located is permitted to be withheld and processing such documents for disclosure.

(E) Commercial use request means a request from or on behalf of one who seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interests of the requester or the person on whose behalf the request is made. In determining whether a request falls within this category, the Executive Secretary will determine the use to which a requester will put the records requested and seek additional information as the Executive Secretary deems necessary.

(F) Educational institution means a preschool, an elementary or secondary school, an institution of undergraduate higher education, an institution of graduate higher education, an institution of professional education, and an institution of vocational education, which operates a program or programs of scholarly research.

(G) Noncommercial scientific institution means an institution that is not operated on a “commercial” basis as that term is referenced in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(E) of this section, and which is operated solely for the purposes of conducting scientific research, the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry.

(H) Representative of the news media means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. In this paragraph (b)(5)(i)(H), the term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news-media entities are television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large and publishers of periodicals (but only if such entities qualify as disseminators of “news”) who make their products available for purchase by or subscription by or free distribution to the general public. These examples are not all-inclusive. Moreover, as methods of news delivery evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media shall be considered to be news-media entities. A freelance journalist shall be regarded as working for a news-media entity if the journalist can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that entity, whether or not the journalist is actually employed by the entity. A publication contract would present a solid basis for such an expectation; the Council may also consider the past publication record of the requester in making such a determination.

(ii) Fees to be charged. The Council will charge fees that recoup the full allowable direct costs it incurs, except that the charging of search and/or duplication fees is subject to the restrictions of paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(G) of this section. The Council may contract with the private sector to locate, reproduce, and/or disseminate records. Provided, however, that the Council has ensured that the ultimate cost to the requester is no greater than it would be if the Council performed these tasks. Fees are subject to change as costs change. In no case will the Council contract out responsibilities which the FOIA provides that it alone may discharge, such as determining the applicability of an exemption, or determining whether to waive or reduce fees.

(A) Manual searches and review. The Council will charge fees at the following rates for manual searches for and review of records:

(1) If search/review is done by clerical staff, the hourly rate for GS-7, step 5, plus 16 percent of the rate to cover benefits;

(2) If search/review is done by professional staff, the hourly rate for GS-13, step 5, plus 16 percent of the rate to cover benefits.

(B) Computer searches. The Council will charge fees at the hourly rate for GS-13, step 5, plus 16 percent of the rate to cover benefits, plus the hourly cost of operating the computer for computer searches for records.

(C) Duplication of records. (1) The per-page fee for paper copy reproduction of a document is $.25;

(2) The fee for records generated by computer is the hourly rate for the computer operator (at GS-7, step 5, plus 16 percent for benefits if clerical staff, and GS-13, step 5, plus 16 percent for benefits if professional staff) plus the cost of materials (computer paper, tapes, disks, labels, etc.).

(3) If any other method of duplication is used, the Council will charge the actual direct cost of duplicating the records.

(D) Hourly rates. If search, duplication and/or review is provided by personnel of member agencies of the Council, fees will reflect their actual hourly rates, plus 16 percent for benefits.

(E) Fees to exceed $25. If the Council estimates that duplication and/or search fees are likely to exceed $25, it will notify the requester of the estimated amount of fees, unless the requester has indicated in advance his/her willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated. In the case of such notification by the Council, the requester will then have the opportunity to confer with the Council's FOIA Public Liaison with the object of reformulating the request to meet his/her needs at a lower cost.

(F) Other services. Complying with requests for special services such as certifying records as true copies or mailing records by express mail is entirely at the discretion of the Council. The Council will recover the full costs of providing such services to the extent it elects to provide them.

(G) Restriction on assessing fees. (1) The Council will not charge fees to any requester, including commercial use requesters, if the cost of collecting a fee would be equal to or greater than the fee itself.

(2)(i) If the Council fails to comply with the time limits specified in the FOIA in which to respond to a request, the Council will not charge search fees, or, in the case of a requester described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(B) of this section, will not charge duplication fees, except as described in paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(G)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this section.

(ii) If the Council has determined that unusual circumstances apply (as the term is defined in the FOIA) and the Council provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 working days.

(iii) If the Council has determined that unusual circumstances apply (as the term is defined in the FOIA) and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, the Council may charge search fees, or, in the case of requesters described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(B) of this section, may charge duplication fees, if the following steps are taken: The Council provided timely written notice of unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with the FOIA; and The Council discussed with the requester via written mail, email message, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii). If this exception is satisfied, the Council may charge all applicable fees incurred in the processing of the request.

(iv) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined by the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.

(H) Waiving or reducing fees. As part of the initial request for records, a requester may ask that the Council waive or reduce fees if disclosure of the records is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Council and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. The initial request for records must also state the justification for a waiver or reduction of fees. Determinations as to a waiver or reduction of fees will be made by the Executive Secretary of the Council and the requester will be notified in writing of his/her determination. A determination not to grant a request for a waiver or reduction of fees under this paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(H) may be appealed to the Chairman of the Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in paragraph (b)(3)(vi) of this section.

(iii) Categories of requesters—(A) Commercial use requesters. The Council will assess fees for commercial use requesters sufficient to recover the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing for release, and duplicating the records sought. Commercial use requesters are not entitled to two hours of free search time nor 100 free pages of reproduction of documents.

(B) News media, educational and noncommercial scientific institution requesters. Requesters who are representatives of the news media, educational and noncommercial scientific institution requesters. The Council shall provide documents to requesters in these categories for the cost of reproduction alone, excluding fees for the first 100 pages.

(C) All other requesters. The Council shall charge requesters who do not fit into any of the categories in paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section fees which recover the full reasonable direct cost of searching for and reproducing records that are responsive to the request, except that the first 100 pages of reproduction and the first two hours of search time shall be furnished without a fee.

(D) Description of records. All requesters must specifically describe records sought.

(iv) Interest on unpaid fees. The Council may begin assessing interest charges on an unpaid bill starting on the 31st day following the day on which the bill was sent. Interest will be at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the date of the billing.

(v) Fees for unsuccessful search and review. The Council may assess fees for time spent searching and reviewing, even if it fails to locate the records or if records located are determined to be exempt from disclosure.

(vi) Aggregating requests. A requester(s) may not file multiple requests each seeking portions of a document or documents, solely in order to avoid payment of fees. If this is done, the Council may aggregate any such requests and charge accordingly. In no case will the Council aggregate multiple requests on unrelated subjects from the same requester.

(vii) Advance payment of fees. The Council will not require a requester to make an assurance of payment or an advance payment unless:

(A) The Council estimates or determines that allowable charges that a requester may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250. The Council will notify the requester of the likely cost and obtain satisfactory assurance of full payment where the requester has a history of prompt payment of FOIA fees, or require an advance payment of an amount up to the full estimated charges in the case of requesters with no history of payment; or

(B) A requester has previously failed to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion. The Council may require the requester to pay the full amount owed plus any applicable interest as provided in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section or demonstrate that he/she has, in fact, paid the fee, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the Council begins to process a new request or a pending request from that requester.

(C) When the Council acts under paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(A) or (B) of this section, the administrative time limits prescribed in subsection (a)(6) of the FOIA (i.e., 20 working days from receipt of initial requests, plus permissible extensions of these time limits) will begin only after the Council has received the fee payments described.

(6) Records of another agency. If a requested record originated with or incorporates the information of another State or Federal agency or department, upon receipt of a request for the record the Council will promptly inform the requester of this circumstance and immediately shall forward the request to the originating agency or department either for processing in accordance with the latter's regulations or for guidance with respect to disposition.

Dated: June 26, 2017. Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council. Judith E. Dupre, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13723 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P; 6714-01-P; 6210-01-P; 4810-33-P; 4810-AM-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0013] Waivers From Requirements of the Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food Rule; Correction AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Notification; correction.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a document that appeared in the Federal Register of Thursday, April 6, 2017 (82 FR 16733). That notification published three waivers from the Requirements of 21 CFR part 1, subpart O—Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food (the Sanitary Transportation rule). That document was published with an error in the Background section. This correction is being made to improve the accuracy of the notification.

DATES:

July 3, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Granger, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Federal Register of Thursday, April 6, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-06854, on page 16734, the following correction is made:

On page 16734, in the third column, the bulleted list of waivers of the Sanitary Transportation rule was published in an incorrect format. This document corrects that format to read as follows:

In accordance with the requirements of section 416 of the FD&C Act, by this notice we are waiving the following persons from the applicable requirements of the Sanitary Transportation rule:

1. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that hold valid permits and are inspected under the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments' Grade “A” Milk Safety Program, only when engaged in transportation operations involving bulk and finished Grade “A” milk and milk products.

2. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that are appropriately certified and are inspected under the requirements established by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference's NSSP, only when engaged in transportation operations involving molluscan shellfish in vehicles that are permitted by the State NSSP certification authority.

3. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that are permitted or otherwise authorized by the regulatory authority to operate a food establishment that provides food directly to consumers (i.e., restaurants, retail food establishments, and nonprofit food establishments as defined in 21 CFR 1.227), only when engaged in transportation operations as:

a. Receivers, whether the food is received at the establishment itself or at a location where the authorized establishment receives and immediately transports the food to the food establishment;

b. shippers and carriers in operations in which food is transported from the establishment as part of the normal business operations of a retail establishment, such as:

i. Delivery of the food directly to the consumer(s) by the authorized establishment or a third-party delivery service; or

ii. delivery of the food to another location operated by the authorized establishment or an affiliated establishment where the food is to be sold or served directly to the consumer(s).

Dated: June 26, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-13888 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 11 and 101 [Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172] RIN 0910-AG57 Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Interim final rule; extension of comment period.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the comment period for the interim final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of May 4, 2017. In the interim final rule, FDA requested comments on the extension of the compliance date for our final rule requiring disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments. The interim final rule extended the compliance date from May 5, 2017, to May 7, 2018, and invited comment on several specific questions on how we might further reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve our regulatory objectives to provide consumers with nutrition information so that they can make informed choices for themselves and their families. We are taking this action in response to a request for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES:

FDA is extending the comment period on the interim final rule published May 4, 2017 (82 FR 20825). Submit either electronic or written comments by August 2, 2017.

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 2, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 2, 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): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, 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-2011-F-0172 for “Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments.” 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 Dockets Management Staff 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.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our 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 Dockets Management Staff. 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: https://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 Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Felicia B. Billingslea, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Federal Register of May 4, 2017, FDA published an interim final rule with a 60-day comment period to request comments on the extension of the compliance date for our final rule requiring disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments. The interim final rule extended the compliance date from May 5, 2017, to May 7, 2018, and invited comment on several specific questions on how we might further reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve our regulatory objectives to provide consumers with nutrition information so that they can make informed choices for themselves and their families. Comments will inform FDA's regulation for the disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments.

We have received a request for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the interim final rule. The request conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the interim final rule.

FDA has considered the request and is extending the comment period for the interim final rule for 30 days, until August 2, 2017. We believe that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying Agency action on these important issues.

Dated: June 27, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-13889 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FDA-2016-C-2570] Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Spirulina Extract AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the color additive regulations to provide for the expanded safe use of spirulina extract to seasonally color hard-boiled shell eggs at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice (GMP). This action is in response to a color additive petition (CAP) filed by McCormick & Company, Inc. (McCormick).

DATES:

This rule is effective August 3, 2017. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on the final rule by August 2, 2017. See section IX for further information on the filing of objections.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed objections will not be considered. Electronic objections must be submitted on or before August 2, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 2, 2017. Objections 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 objections in the following way:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Objections submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your objection will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your objection 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 objection, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

• If you want to submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the objection 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): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

• For written/paper objections submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your objection, 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-2016-C-2570 for “Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Spirulina Extract.” Received objections, 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 Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

• Confidential Submissions—To submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your objections 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.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our 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 Dockets Management Staff. 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: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or objections 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 Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

In a notice published in the Federal Register of September 16, 2016 (81 FR 63728), we announced that we filed a color additive petition (CAP 6C0306) submitted by McCormick & Company, Inc., c/o Exponent, 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036. The petition proposed to amend the color additive regulations in § 73.530 (21 CFR 73.530) Spirulina extract to provide for the expanded safe use of spirulina extract, prepared by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of Arthrospira platensis, to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs. The color additive is intended to be sold as a powder in a packet to consumers at levels consistent with GMP.

II. Background

Spirulina extract is currently approved under § 73.530 for coloring confections (including candy and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream and frozen desserts, dessert coatings and toppings, beverage mixes and powders, yogurts, custards, puddings, cottage cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, ready-to-eat cereals (excluding extruded cereals), and coating formulations applied to dietary supplement tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with GMP. Spirulina extract also is currently approved under 21 CFR 73.1530 for coloring coating formulations applied to drug tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with GMP. Spirulina extract is exempt from certification under section 721(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379e(c)) because we previously determined that certification was not necessary for the protection of public health (78 FR 49117 at 49119, August 13, 2013).

The spirulina extract that is the subject of this final rule is a blue-colored powder produced by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of A. platensis (also known as Spirulina platensis), an edible blue-green cyanobacterium. The color additive contains phycocyanins as the principal coloring components. Based on data and information provided in the petition on the identity, physical and chemical properties, manufacturing process, and composition of the color additive, we have determined that the color additive meets the specifications for spirulina extract in § 73.530 (Ref. 1).

Spirulina-derived ingredients have also been the subject of four notices submitted by firms to FDA informing us of their determinations that certain uses of these substances in food are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) (78 FR 49117 at 49118). Under section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)), a substance that is GRAS for a particular use in food is not a food additive, and may lawfully be utilized for that use without our review and approval. There is no GRAS exemption, however, to the definition of color additive in section 201(t) of the FD&C Act). Therefore, we must approve the use of a color additive in food before it is marketed; otherwise the food containing the color additive is adulterated under section 402(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(c)). One GRAS notice (GRN 000424) pertains to the use of a spirulina-derived substance that is similar in chemical composition to the color additive that is the subject of this final rule, but the substance that was the subject of GRN 000424 has a much higher phycocyanin content (Ref. 3). Importantly, in our response to these GRAS notifications, we indicated that if the substances that were the subject of these submissions impart color to the food, they may be subject to regulation as a color additive.

III. Safety Evaluation A. Determination of Safety

Under section 721(b)(4) of the FD&C Act, a color additive may not be listed for a particular use unless the data and information available to FDA establish that the color additive is safe for that use. Our color additive regulations at 21 CFR 70.3(i) define “safe” to mean that there is convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive. To establish with reasonable certainty that a color additive intended for use in foods is not harmful under its intended conditions of use, we consider the projected human dietary exposure to the color additive, the additive's toxicological data, and other relevant information (such as published literature) available to us. We compare an individual's estimated exposure, or estimated daily intake (EDI), of the color additive from all food sources to an acceptable daily intake level established by toxicological data. The EDI is determined by projections based on the amount of the color additive proposed for use in particular foods or drugs and on data regarding the amount consumed from all ingested sources of the color additive. We commonly use the EDI for the 90th percentile consumer of a color additive as a measure of high chronic exposure.

B. Safety of Petitioned Use of the Color Additive

During our safety review of this petition (CAP 6C0306), we considered the projected human dietary exposure to spirulina extract and to phycocyanins (the principal coloring components) from the petitioned use and from currently permitted uses of spirulina extract in foods and ingested drugs. McCormick submitted an exposure estimate for spirulina extract and for phycocyanins for the petitioned use of spirulina extract based on a worst-case scenario that presumed that spirulina extract could potentially migrate from the outside of the egg shell to the edible portion of the egg. McCormick estimated that the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs would result in an exposure to spirulina extract of 8.8 milligrams per person per day (mg/p/d) at the 90th percentile for the U.S. population aged 2 years and older (Ref. 2). McCormick also estimated that the petitioned use of spirulina extract would result in an exposure to phycocyanins of 1.9 mg/p/d at the 90th percentile for the U.S. population aged 2 years and older (Ref. 2). Despite providing this worst-case estimate, McCormick noted that egg shells are not consumed and demonstrated that the spirulina extract applied to the outside of an egg shell generally does not migrate through the shell and the outer and inner membranes separating the shell from the edible portion of the egg. For these reasons, McCormick asserted that the amount of spirulina extract that would actually be found on the edible portion of an egg would be negligible, resulting in a 0.17 percent increase of the cumulative estimated daily intake (CEDI) for phycocyanins (Ref. 2). The previously estimated upper bound CEDI for phycocyanins from all GRAS-notified uses of spirulina extract in food is 1,140 mg/p/day or 19 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg bw/d) for a 60 kg individual based on uses addressed in GRN 000424 (Ref. 3). We agree that McCormick's exposure estimate is sufficiently conservative. We conclude that the exposure to spirulina extract and phycocyanins resulting from the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is negligible, and that the petitioned use would not result in a significant contribution to the CEDI for phycocyanins (Ref. 2).

To support the safety of the proposed use of spirulina extract to color the shells of hard-boiled eggs, McCormick referenced the safety determinations made by FDA for CAPs 2C0293 (78 FR 49117, August 13, 2013), 2C0297 (79 FR 20095, April 11, 2014), and 4C0300 (80 FR 50762, August 21, 2015). McCormick also conducted a search of the peer-reviewed scientific literature for animal and human oral consumption studies that tested spirulina, spirulina-derived ingredients, and phycocyanins that were published between January 1, 2014, and July 20, 2016. McCormick submitted to us the published animal and human studies that they identified as being relevant to their petition. We evaluated the submitted safety information and additional studies that we identified as relevant and concluded that this information does not raise any safety concerns (Refs. 4 and 5).

In our previous evaluation of the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in foods (80 FR 50762), we did not have any concerns regarding the safety of the use of spirulina extract and its major coloring components, phycocyanins. Taking into account all the available safety information and the estimated exposure to phycocyanins from the petitioned use, we conclude that the proposed use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is safe (Ref. 5).

We discussed the potential allergenicity of spirulina phycocyanins in our final rule for the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in candy and chewing gum (78 FR 49117 at 49119). Based on the comparison of the known amino acid sequences of phycocyanins with the sequences of known protein allergens, we determined that there is a low probability that phycocyanins are protein allergens. We therefore concluded that the spirulina phycocyanins present an insignificant allergy risk. Additionally, after a review of the literature relevant to the potential allergenicity of spirulina phycocyanins, we have determined that spirulina phycocyanins still present an insignificant allergy risk (Refs. 4-7). We are not aware of any new information that would cause us to change this conclusion.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the data and information in the petition and other relevant material, we conclude that the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is safe. We further conclude that the color additive will achieve its intended technical effect and is suitable for the petitioned use. Consequently, we are amending the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73) as set forth in this document. In addition, based upon the factors listed in 21 CFR 71.20(b), we continue to conclude that certification of spirulina extract is not necessary for the protection of the public health.

V. Public Disclosure

In accordance with § 71.15 (21 CFR 71.15), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in § 71.15, we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure.

VI. Analysis of Environmental Impact

We previously considered the environmental effects of this rule, as stated in the September 16, 2016, Federal Register notice of petition for CAP 6C0306 (81 FR 63728). We stated that we had determined, under 21 CFR 25.32(r), that this action “is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment” such that neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. We have not received any new information or comments that would affect our previous determination.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

VIII. Section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act

Our review of this petition was limited to section 721 of the FD&C Act. This final rule is not a statement regarding compliance with other sections of the FD&C Act. For example, section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that contains a drug approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a biological product licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or a drug or biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and their existence has been made public, unless one of the exemptions in section 301(ll)(1) to (ll)(4) of the FD&C Act applies. In our review of this petition, we did not consider whether section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act or any of its exemptions apply to food containing this color additive. Accordingly, this final rule should not be construed to be a statement that a food containing this color additive, if introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, would not violate section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act. Furthermore, this language is included in all color additive final rules that pertain to food and therefore should not be construed to be a statement of the likelihood that section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act applies.

IX. Objections

This rule is effective as shown in the DATES section, except as to any provisions that may be stayed by the filing of proper objections. If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. We will publish notice of the objections that we have received or lack thereof in the Federal Register.

X. References

The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

1. Memorandum from N. Belai, Color Technology Team, Office of Cosmetics and Colors (OCAC), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), FDA to M. Harry, Division of Petition Review, Office of Food Additive Safety (OFAS), CFSAN, FDA, February 1, 2017. 2. Memorandum from H. Lee, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA to M. Harry, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA, February 1, 2017. 3. Letter from D. Keefe, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA to H. Newman, Desert Lake Technologies, LLC, Agency Response Letter GRAS Notice 000424, December 6, 2012, (http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/NoticeInventory/ucm335743.htm). 4. Memorandum from L. Rosenfeld, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA to J. Park, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA, January 12, 2017. 5. Memorandum from J. Park, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA to M. Harry, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA, February 2, 2017. 6. Memorandum from J. Park, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA to M. Harry, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA, April 13, 2017. 7. Memorandum from J. Park, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA to M. Harry, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA, April 25, 2017. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73

Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Foods, Medical devices.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 73 is amended as follows:

PART 73—LISTING OF COLOR ADDITIVES EXEMPT FROM CERTIFICATION 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e.

2. Section 73.530 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 73.530 Spirulina extract.

(c) Uses and restrictions. Spirulina extract may be safely used for coloring confections (including candy and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream and frozen desserts, dessert coatings and toppings, beverage mixes and powders, yogurts, custards, puddings, cottage cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, ready-to-eat cereals (excluding extruded cereals), coating formulations applied to dietary supplement tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice, and to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs, except that it may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been issued under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, unless the use of the added color is authorized by such standards.

Dated: June 21, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-13867 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0538] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; China Basin, San Francisco, CA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the 3rd Street Drawbridge across China Basin, mile 0.0, at San Francisco, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow participants to cross the bridge, uninterrupted, during the San Francisco Marathon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation [USCG-2017-0538], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The City of San Francisco has requested a temporary change to the operation of the 3rd Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over China Basin, at San Francisco, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 3 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal if at least one hour notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.149. Navigation on the waterway is recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 23, 2017, to allow participants to cross the bridge, uninterrupted, during the San Francisco Marathon. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: June 27, 2017. C.T. Hausner, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-13923 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0325] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Quantuck Canal, Westhampton Beach, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the West Bay Bridge across the Quantuck Canal, mile 0.1 at Westhampton Beach, New York. This action is necessary to complete rehabilitation of the bascule leaves of the drawbridge. The deviation will allow the bridge to open only one bascule span in order to provide passage for vessels requiring an opening.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on October 2, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on March 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0325, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation in order to facilitate reconstruction of the bascule leaves.

The West Bay Bridge across the Quantuck Canal, mile 0.1, at Westhampton Beach, New York is a double-leaf bascule bridge offering mariners a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water and 13.3 feet at mean low water in the closed position. Horizontal clearance is 50 feet. Utilization of a work barge placed underneath one of the bascule leaves will reduce horizontal clearance to 25 feet. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).

This temporary deviation will allow the Beach Lane Bridge to open only one of the two bascule spans for bridge openings from 12:01 a.m. on October 2, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on March 30, 2018. Dual lift span operations will be available, provided 48 hours of advance notice is furnished to the owner of the bridge.

The majority of vessels requiring bridge openings are sailing vessels and yachts transiting the waterway. Discussion with the proprietor of the Modern Yachts Marina located in the vicinity of the bridge confirms typical recreational traffic will continue to be able to proceed through the navigation opening of the bridge during one-leaf operations. Moreover, the bulk of recreational traffic that utilizes the waterway is largely seasonal in nature, peaking during the late spring, summer and early autumn months. Little to no recreational traffic transits the Quantuck Canal throughout the winter. Small scale tug/barge combinations occasionally transit the Quantuck Canal, but such commercial craft are generally limited in size. Mariners concur that the requirement to provide the bridge owner 48 hours of advance notice for dual lift span operations will not impede overall operations.

Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: June 15, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-13854 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0356] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sloop Channel, Hempstead, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge across Sloop Channel, mile 15.4, at Hempstead, New York. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate an annual fireworks display and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0356, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation with concurrence of the bridge owner, the New York State Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public fireworks event.

The Wantagh Parkway Bridge, mile 15.4, across Sloop Channel, has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water and 21.8 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.5.

The temporary deviation will allow the Wantagh Parkway Bridge to remain closed from 9 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.

Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: June 27, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-13915 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0561] Safety Zones; Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display, Siskiwit Bay, Cornucopia, WI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display in Cornucopia, WI from 9:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on July 1, 2017. This action is necessary to protect participants and spectators during the Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(4) and (b) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on July 1, 2017, for the Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display safety zone, located in § 165.943(a)(4).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this document, call or email LT John Mack, Chief of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (218) 725-3818, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(4) and (b) from 9:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on July 1, 2017 on all waters of Siskiwit Bay bounded by the arc of a circle with a 420-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with it center in position 46°51′35″ N., 091°06′15″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or via telephone at (715) 779-5100. This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Duluth or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or via telephone at (715) 779-5100.

Dated: June 22, 2017. E.E. Williams, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 2017-13563 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0558] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Garlock Wedding; Saint Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Saint Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Saint Lawrence River within a 350-foot radius of position 44°20′ 32.8″ N., 075°55′ 02.71″ W. (NAD 83) during the Garlock Wedding fireworks display on July 7, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP).

DATES:

This rule is effective from 10:45 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0588 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 LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency finds good cause that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not provided to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard issues this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 10:45 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Saint Lawrence River; Alexandria Bay, NY contained within a 350-foot radius of position 44°20′32.8″ N., 075°55′02.71″ W. (NAD 83). The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Garlock Wedding 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. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771 Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017).

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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 safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement for only one hour late in the evening. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0558 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0588 Safety Zone; Garlock Wedding; Saint Lawrence River, Alexandria Bay, NY.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of the Saint Lawrence River; Alexandria Bay, NY contained within a 350-foot radius of position 44°20′32.8″N., 075°55′02.71″ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 10:45 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

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

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: June 26, 2017. J.S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-13856 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0568] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Lake Erie at Cahoon Memorial Park, Bay Village, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Bay Village Independence Day Celebration fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0568 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email [email protected].

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

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the maritime Fireworks Display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with vessels in the vicinity of firework displays on July 04, 2017 will be a safety concern for vessels and spectators within a 560 foot radius of the launch point of the fireworks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is happening.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 04, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 560 feet of the launch point of the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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 above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within 560 feet of the launch area for the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0568 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0568 Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Celebration; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass all U.S waterways within a 560 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°29′23.9″ N. and 081°55′44.5″ W., Bay Village, OH (NAD 83).

(b) Effective and enforcement period. This regulation is effective and will be enforced on July 04, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

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

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: June 27, 2017. J.S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-13919 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0562] Safety Zones; Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display, Duluth Harbor Basin, Duluth, MN AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display in Duluth, MN from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017. This action is necessary to protect participants and spectators during the Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(3) and (b) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017, for the Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display safety zone, located in § 165.943(a)(3).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this document, call or email LT John Mack, Chief of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (218) 725-3818, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(3) and (b) from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017 on all waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin bounded by the arc of a circle with a 840-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with its center in position 46°46′14″ N., 092°06′16″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at (218) 529-3100.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Duluth or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at (218) 529-3100.

Dated: June 22, 2017. E.E. Williams, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 2017-13575 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0533] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lakewood Independence Day Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Lakewood, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Lake Erie at Lakewood Park, Lakewood, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Lakewood Independence Day fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0533 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email [email protected].

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

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the maritime fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with vessels in the vicinity of firework displays on July 04, 2017 will be a safety concern for vessels and spectators within a 420 foot radius of the launch point of the fireworks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is happening.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 420 feet of the launch point of the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within 420 feet of the launch area for the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0533 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0533 Safety Zone; Lakewood Independence Day Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Lakewood, OH.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass all U.S waterways within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°29′50″ N., 081°47′52″ W., Lakewood, OH (NAD 83).

(b) Effective and enforcement period. This regulation is effective and will be enforced on July 4, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

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

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: June 27, 2017. J.S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-13924 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0476] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Canalside's 4th of July Celebration; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor during Canalside's 4th of July Celebration fireworks display on July 4, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0476 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 LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected].

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details of this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor; Buffalo, NY within a 560-foot radius of position 42°52′10.75″ N., 078°52′56.01″ W. (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0476 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0476 Safety Zone; Canalside's 4th of July Celebration, Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY within a 560-foot radius of position 42°52′10.76″ N., 078°52′56.01″ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. This regulation is effective on July 4, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

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

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: June 28, 2017. J.S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-13978 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0331] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Thunder on the Outer Harbor; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor during the Thunder on the Outer Harbor boat races. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with high speed boat races.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9:45 a.m. on July 22, 2017 until 4:15 p.m. on July 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0331 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

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

On May 11, 2017, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Thunder on the Outer Harbor; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY § 165.T09-0331. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this high speed boat race. The comment period ended June 16, 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 because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the event. The event has been publicized in the local media and previously in the Federal Register through issuance of the NPRM; the public does not need time to make preparations for this rule to go into effect.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a high speed boat races present significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include vessels reaching high speeds in a relatively small area and large wake. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the boat races are taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone on June 22 and June 23, 2017, from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. daily. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′21″ N. and 078°53′14″ W. then West to 42°52′15″ N. and 078°53′32″ W. then South to 42°51′41″ N. and 078°53′02″ W. then East to 42°51′46” N. and 078°52′45″ W. (NAD 83) then returning to the point of origin.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. In addition, the safety zone will have built in times to allow vessels to travel through when races are not being held. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0331 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0331 Safety Zone; Thunder on the Outer Harbor; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY encompassed by all waters of the Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′21″ N. and 078°53′14″ W. then West to 42°52′15″ N. and 078°53′32″ W. then South to 42°51′41″ N. and 078°53′02″ W. then East to 42°51′46″ N. and 078°52′45″ W. (NAD 83) then returning to the point of origin.

(b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. on July 22, 2017, and July 23, 2017.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

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

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: June 28, 2017. J.S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-13977 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0025; FRL-9964-26-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLC AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. The revision consists of a reasonably available control technology (RACT) approval for a volatile organic compound (VOC) emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES:

This direct final rule will be effective September 1, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 2, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0025 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Table of Contents I. Background and Purpose II. Description and Evaluation of the State's Submittal III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

Section 184(b) of the CAA requires Rhode Island to implement RACT for all major sources of VOCs and all sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) submitted RACT Approval File No. 01-05-AP as a SIP revision for incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP. RACT Approval File No. 01-05-AP was originally issued to TPI Composites Incorporated (currently owned and operated by US Watercraft, LLC) in Warren, Rhode Island. The RACT Approval was received by EPA on August 8, 2003, and amended shortly thereafter. The amendment was received by EPA on February 20, 2004.

II. Description and Evaluation of the State's Submittal

US Watercraft, LLC is located at 373 Market Street, Warren, Rhode Island, and operates two fiberglass process areas that emit VOCs: Fiberglass production; and Research and Development (R&D). The RI DEM RACT Approval replaced the requirements in the original 1990 RACT Consent Agreement, File No. 90-1-AP, which EPA approved on August 31, 1990 (55 FR 35623). RI DEM issued the updated RACT Approval for this facility to reflect technological advances in the fiberglass manufacturing industry as well as to correct and clarify requirements contained in the consent agreement. The RACT Approval control strategy was revised to include the Seemann Composite Resin Infusion Molding Process (SCRIMP), a closed molding process, and VOC limitations on gel coats and resins used to limit VOC emissions from the operations performed at the facility. In addition, the updated Approval provides for enhanced recordkeeping to track VOC emissions from the facility. Specifically, the submitted amendment to the RACT Approval restricts US Watercraft when applying vinyl ester resin to using the closed molding process or using a roller, except that US Watercraft may apply vinyl ester resin by spray layup for corrosion proof laminate, as is the case with the consent agreement currently in the SIP. Additionally, the updated RACT Approval prohibits the use of VOC solvents for cleanup, whereas the consent agreement currently in Rhode Island's SIP allows solvents containing VOCs to be used on a limited basis for cleaning activities. Since the RACT Approval and its amendment are no less stringent than the previously-approved consent agreement, and in some instances are more stringent, the anti-back sliding requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA are met. Therefore, EPA is approving the new RACT Approval and amendment for US Watercraft, LLC.

It should be noted that subsequent to RI DEM's submittal of its SIP revision and amendment for US Watercraft in 2003 and 2004, respectively, EPA later issued a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481). RI DEM has not yet addressed this CTG. On February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9158), EPA issued a Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Rhode Island's failure to submit a SIP revision to satisfy the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.

At this time, EPA is taking no action with regard to Rhode Island's obligation to address the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials since Rhode Island has not yet taken formal action to address this CTG. In this action, we are approving the revised RACT Approval for US Watercraft as meeting the section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirement of the CAA and incorporating it into the SIP as SIP-strengthening. Rhode Island is still obligated to submit a formal SIP revision to EPA detailing how the state is addressing the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG for any and all sources in the state covered by that CTG.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP, a RACT Approval effective July 16, 2003, and a RACT Approval amendment effective February 11, 2004, for US Watercraft, LLC (formerly known as TPI Composites or Tillotson-Pearson). EPA is also removing the previously approved consent agreement for this facility from the Rhode Island SIP.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 1, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by August 2, 2017.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 1, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. 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 RACT Approval for US Watercraft, LLC described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: June 7, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

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

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart OO—Rhode Island 2. In § 52.2070 in the table in paragraph (d), remove the entry “Tillotson-Pearson in Warren, Rhode Island”; and add the entry for “US Watercraft, LLC in Warren, Rhode Island” to the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.2070 Identification of plan.

(d) EPA-approved State Source specific requirements.

EPA-Approved Rhode Island Source Specific Requirements Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Explanations *         *         *         *         *         *         * US Watercraft, LLC in Warren, Rhode Island File No. 01-05-AP 7/16/2003 and 2/11/2004 7/3/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation] VOC RACT Approval and Amendment.
[FR Doc. 2017-13907 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624 & EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0623; FRL-9964-39-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; FL: Hillsborough and Nassau Areas; SO2 Attainment Demonstration AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP), to EPA on April 3, 2015, for the purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Hillsborough County and Nassau County SO2 nonattainment areas (hereafter referred to as the “Hillsborough Area,” “Nassau Area,” or “Areas”). The Hillsborough Area is comprised of the portion of Hillsborough County in Florida surrounding the Mosaic Fertilizer facility (hereafter referred to as “Mosaic”). The Nassau Area comprises the portion of Nassau County in Florida surrounding the Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC sulfite pulp mill (hereafter referred to as “Rayonier”). EPA concludes that Florida has appropriately demonstrated that attainment with the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS will occur in the Nassau and Hillsborough Areas by the applicable attainment dates, and that the plans meet the other applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). As a part of approving the attainment demonstrations, EPA is taking final action to approve into the Florida SIP the SO2 emissions limits and associated compliance parameters for both Areas.

DATES:

This rule will be effective August 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Nos. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0623 and EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Twunjala Bradley, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9352. Ms. Bradley can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5, 2013, EPA designated the first set of areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS, including the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas in Florida. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area designations were effective October 4, 2013, which triggered a requirement for Florida to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA sections 191-192. Section 191 of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs for areas designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no later than April 4, 2015, in this case. Section 192 requires that such plans shall provide for NAAQS attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of the nonattainment designation. Section 172(c) of part D of the CAA lists the required components of a nonattainment plan submittal. The base year emissions inventory (section 172(c)(3)) is required to show a “comprehensive, accurate, current inventory” of all relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. The nonattainment plan must identify and quantify any expected emissions from the construction of new sources to account for emissions in the area that might affect reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment, or that might interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and it must provide for a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program (section 172(c)(5)). The attainment demonstration must include a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide for reasonable further progress (RFP) and expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (section 172(c)(2), (4), (6) and (7)). The nonattainment plan must include an analysis of the reasonably available control measures (RACM) considered, including reasonably available control technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)). Finally, the nonattainment plan must provide for contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)) to be implemented either in the case that RFP toward attainment is not made, or in the case that the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date.

On April 23, 2014, EPA issued a guidance document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions” (SO2 Nonattainment Guidance). The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides recommendations for the development of SO2 nonattainment SIPs to satisfy CAA requirements (see, e.g., section 172 and 191-192). An attainment demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and part 51, appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance also provides states with the option to utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so long as the state meets various suggested criteria to ensure attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.

Florida submitted attainment demonstrations for both Areas on April 3, 2015. On August 23, 2016, EPA proposed to approve Florida's April 3, 2015, SO2 attainment demonstrations, which included all the specific attainment elements mentioned above and new SO2 emission limits with averaging times longer than the 1-hour form of the primary SO2 NAAQS for the Mosaic-Riverview fertilizer plant and the Tampa Electric Company's (TECO's) Big Bend electric generating source impacting the Hillsborough Area, and for Rayonier sulfite pulp mill and WestRock CP, LLC kraft pulp mill sources impacting the Nassau Area in accordance with the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. See 81 FR 57522 and 81 FR 57535. Comments on the proposed rulemakings were due on or before September 23, 2016. EPA received three sets of comments on the proposed approval of Florida's SO2 SIP revision for the Hillsborough Area, and one set of comments on the proposed approval of Florida's SO2 SIP for the Nassau Area. The comments are available in the docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's summary of the comments and responses are provided below. For a comprehensive discussion of Florida's SO2 attainment SIP and EPA's analysis and rationale for approval for both Areas, please refer to the August 23, 2016, proposed rulemakings. The remainder of this preamble summarizes EPA's final approval of Florida's SO2 attainment demonstrations for both areas and response to comments.

II. Response to Comments

The three sets of comments for the proposed approval of the SIP revision for the Hillsborough Area were from the Arizona Mining Association (AMA), Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, INC. (FCG), and Tampa Electric Company (TECO). The single set of comments for the proposed approval of the SIP revision for the Nassau Area was received from the AMA. EPA will refer to the AMA, FCG, and TECO Commenters collectively as “the Commenter(s).” Notably, the Commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed approvals of Florida's SO2 SIP revisions for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas. Additionally, the Commenters also provided other related comments for which EPA is taking the opportunity to respond in this final rulemaking. To review the complete sets of comments received, refer to the dockets for this rulemaking as identified above. A summary of the comments received and EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The Commenter references a revised study conducted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated January 2016 which asserts that AERMOD over-predicts at the level of the standard when compared to actual monitored data. IDEM's study compared predicted and observed SO2 concentrations at the Gibson Power Plant in southwestern Indiana. The Commenter claims that the IDEM's study showed AERMOD may “grossly over-estimate site specific monitoring data.” The Commenter states that the study assessed model-predicted ambient concentrations at the monitor receptor points and compared it to actual hourly monitor concentrations. The Commenter argues that the study showed that when the projected SO2 concentrations were 35 ppb or higher, AERMOD over-predicted ambient impacts by more than a factor of two in nearly 84 percent of the cases based on offsite meteorological conditions and in nearly 25 percent of the cases when onsite meteorology was considered. The Commenter also asserts that AERMOD under-predicted the actual site monitored data in less than 1 percent of the cases. The Commenter concludes that the IDEM study suggests that TECO's modeled allowable limit at Big Bend station is likely over-estimated.

Response 1: First, EPA believes that the Commenter's objection is not germane to our proposed approval of the Florida SIP, and raises objections that are both outside the scope of our approval action and not averse to it. Second, EPA notes that the IDEM modeling study is a seriously flawed analysis and disagrees that it indicates poor model performance by AERMOD as a general matter. Most notably, the report compares modeled SO2 levels expressed in μg/m3 against monitored values expressed in ppb. EPA made IDEM aware of the discrepancy in concentration units in fall 2015. A more appropriate assessment of this model-monitor comparison, as discussed, for example, in an article in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association by Kali Frost of IDEM, published April 9, 2014, shows that AERMOD results match monitoring data relatively closely. Also, as part of the proposed revisions to The Guideline on Air Quality Modeling in 2015 and finalized in 2016, EPA performed an evaluation on the use of prognostic meteorological data for input into AERMOD. Part of this evaluation included the same Gibson study as in the Frost 2014 paper and the IDEM study. As with the Frost 2014 paper, the results of the EPA evaluation indicated good model performance for AERMOD. The evaluation can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document, Evaluation of Prognostic Meteorological Data in AERMOD Applications (EPA-454/R-16-004). Additionally, the Commenter does not offer any specific technical evidence or documentation that the attainment modeling for the Hillsborough Area over predicts estimated site monitoring concentration nor explains how the SO2 characterization of the area in the IDEM study applies to the Hillsborough Area. Furthermore, notwithstanding stated concerns about the model, the Commenter concludes that the SO2 emission limits established for the TECO Big Bend Station are “appropriate to ensure attainment with SO2 NAAQS and provides the operational flexibility to ensure a reliable power supply to the Tampa Bay area.” EPA agrees that the modeling conducted for Florida's attainment plan submission provided results that support the emission limitations developed by the state for the particular sources at issue in this action.

Comment 2: The Commenters state that EPA did not explicitly clarify its legal authority to approve the Florida attainment plan SIP submissions with longer-term averaging times for emission limits for the Rayonier and WestRock sources in the Nassau Area; and Mosaic and TECO facilities in the Hillsborough Area. The Commenters suggest EPA clearly explain the legal authority under which it can approve the longer term emission limitations contained in the proposed attainment SIPs for each respective area as well as update the 2014 nonattainment guidance with additional analysis to support the “probabilistic” approach to developing such emission limits. The Commenters, nevertheless, agreed with EPA that it is appropriate to approve SO2 emission limitations with a 30-day averaging period and a 24-hour averaging period for the TECO and Mosaic facilities, respectively, as part of the Hillsborough Area 1-hour SO2 attainment SIP. The Commenters also agreed with EPA that it is appropriate to approve SO2 emission limitations with a 3-hour averaging period for both the Rayonier and WestRock facilities as part of the Nassau Area 1-hour SO2 attainment SIP. The Commenters state that EPA's approval of Florida's attainment plan with emission limitations that have longer-term averaging periods is a “reasonable and technically justified approach that is consistent with the purposes of the CAA.” The Commenters maintain that EPA's approach is “scientifically defensible and reflects EPA's sound judgment regarding how to calculate a longer-term emissions limit that is comparably stringent to the critical emission value.” The Commenters believe that the longer-term limits are no more likely to cause a NAAQS exceedance than an hourly limit set at the critical emission value because both are determined by the same air modeling approach and calculated to be comparably stringent and provide for operational flexibility to ensure a reliable production of electricity.

Response 2: EPA appreciates the Commenter's observation regarding the appropriateness of approving attainment plans with emission limitations that apply over a longer time period than the 1-hour form of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As mentioned above, CAA section 172(c) directs states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted attainment plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all control strategies in attainment plans reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. See “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble), at 13567-68. Additional guidance is provided in the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. For SO2, there are generally two components needed to support an attainment determination submitted under section 172(c): (1) Emission limitations and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W which demonstrates that these emission limitations and control measures provide for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the applicable attainment date for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limitations and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective emission limitations and control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable (source specific limitations must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).

In the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance EPA notes that past Agency guidance has recommended that averaging times in SIP emissions limitations should not exceed the averaging time of the applicable NAAQS that the limit is intended to help attain (e.g., addressing emissions averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to utilize emission limitations with longer averaging times of up to 30 days, so long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance recommends that—should states elect to use longer averaging times—the longer term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise would have set.

The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides an extensive discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, EPA considered the nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact of the use of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the standard, and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among the various factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a state's attainment plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22 to 39. See also id. at Appendices B, C and D.

As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including this form of determining compliance with the standard, was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single exceedance of the numerical limit of 75 ppb does not constitute a violation of the standard. Instead, at issue is whether a source operating in compliance with a properly set longer term average could cause exceedances, and if so the resulting frequency and magnitude of such exceedances, and in particular whether EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly set longer term average limit will provide that the average fourth highest daily maximum value will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of EPA's review of how to judge whether such plans “provide for attainment,” based on modeling of projected allowable emissions and in light of the NAAQS' form for determining attainment at monitoring sites, follows.

For plans for SO2 attainment based on 1-hour emission limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed emission rates. The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to result in attainment (i.e., in an “average year” 1 shows three, not four days with maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the “critical emission value.” The modeling process for identifying this critical emission value inherently considers the numerous variables that affect ambient concentrations of SO2, such as meteorological data, background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach, the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission limitation at this critical emission value.

1 An “average year” is used to mean a year with average air quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T provides for averaging three years of 99th percentile daily maximum values (e.g., the fourth highest maximum daily concentration in a year with 365 days with valid data), this discussion and an example below uses a single “average year” in order to simplify the illustration of relevant principles.

EPA recognizes that some sources may have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the critical emission value, which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in its guidance document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit to be similar to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended that the longer term average limit be set at a level that is comparably stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a downward adjustment from the critical emission value) and that takes the source's emissions profile into account. As a result, EPA expects either form of emission limit to yield comparable air quality.

Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the critical emission level, and in the longer term average limit scenario, the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit well below the critical emission value. In an “average year,” compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with the source complying with a longer term limit, it is possible that additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emission value at times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the longer term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer term limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is set well below the critical emission value), so a source complying with an appropriately set longer term limit is likely to have lower emissions at critical times than would be the case if the source were emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.

As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, which results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an “average year,” these emissions cause the 5 highest maximum daily average 1-hour concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1000 pounds per hour, but with a typical emissions profile emissions would much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds/hour, 1100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour, and 1200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative example because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third and fourth days would not have exceedances that otherwise would have occurred. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.

This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA found that the requirement for lower average emissions is highly likely to yield better air quality than is required with a comparably stringent 1-hour limit. Based on analyses described in appendix B, EPA expects that an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set comparably stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of having a lower number of exceedances and better air quality than an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the critical emission value. This result provides a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this result can be expected to occur.

The question then becomes whether this approach—which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value—meets the requirement in sections 110(a) and 172(c) for state implementation plans to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants, it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the requirement to provide for attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective, in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement for lower emissions on average will result in days not having exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the critical emission value. Additional policy considerations, such as in this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions variability without significant risk of violations, are also appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in judging whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long as 30 days, determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, will result in attainment, EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

For these reasons, the Commenter's statement that “the longer-term limits are no more likely to cause a NAAQS exceedance than an hourly limit set at the critical emission value” is not perfectly consistent with the EPA's position. Presuming that the Commenter means to speak of NAAQS violations rather than single exceedances of the level of the NAAQS, the use of longer-term limits creates an arguable (albeit minimal) risk of violations that nominally does not exist with short-term limits, even though compliance with an appropriately adjusted longer-term limit is likely to yield fewer exceedances of the level of the NAAQS than compliance with a short-term limit. Thus, the Commenter's statement misrepresents EPA's rationale for approving the longer-term average limits in Florida's plans as providing for attainment.

The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the longer term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may require use of an emission database from another source. The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit to determine a longer term average emission limit that may be considered comparably stringent.2 The guidance also addresses a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might occur under the longer term emission rate limit.

2 For example, if the critical emission value is 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, and a suitable adjustment factor is determined to be 70 percent, the recommended longer term average limit would be 700 pounds per hour.

Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W). 3 In 2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in appendix A to the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance document referenced above. Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.

3 The most recent version of the Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51) was published in the Federal Register, 82 FR 5182, on January 17, 2017 with an effective date of May 22, 2017.

As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment (i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality dispersion modeling (see appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, EPA believes that dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level concentrations of SO2.

The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010, clarification memo on “Applicability of appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (U.S. EPA, 2010a).

The Commenters state that EPA's approval of Florida's attainment plans with emission limitations that have longer-term averaging periods is a “reasonable and technically justified approach that is consistent with the purposes of the CAA.” The Commenters maintain that EPA's approach is “scientifically defensible and reflects EPA's sound judgment regarding how to calculate a longer-term emissions limit that is comparably stringent to the critical emission value.”

Based on a review of the state's submittal, the EPA believes that the longer average limits established for Rayonier and WestRock in the Nassau Area and Mosaic and TECO in the Hillsborough Area provide for a suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for these sources. Florida used a suitable data profile in an appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding emission limits that have comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the state determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the longer-term averaging limits allow occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the state's limits compensate by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. See FL DEP's April 4, 2015 attainment SIPs for both areas in the docket for this final action (EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624 & EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0623).

Comment 3: The Commenter makes several statements regarding the use of emissions limitations with longer averaging periods as a means of addressing emissions from sources during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) activities. The commenter states that during periods of operating variability, including startup and shutdown, there is a possibility of short periods of SO2 emissions that would be greater than the critical emission value, but the commenter claims that due to their relatively short duration, infrequent occurrence, and the low probability of such periods occurring simultaneously with unfavorable meteorological conditions, these emissions would be very unlikely to cause exceedances of the NAAQS. The Commenter further asserts that recent court decisions requiring continuous compliance with emission limitations, without exemptions for emissions during SSM events 4 and without affirmative defenses for excess emissions during SSM events,5 do not affect EPA's authority to allow emission limitations with longer averaging periods in attainment plans. The Commenter also argues that a single, continuous emission limitation that applies to the facility at all times, but with a longer term average as in this case, provides for “more coherent compliance procedures” than other approaches such as different emission limitations or work practice standards that apply only during startup and shutdown periods. The Commenter asserts that EPA's approval of an emission limitation with a longer-term averaging period is the only practical way to implement the requirement for continuous compliance given the reality that sources vary in their operation during the course of a full year.

4Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

5NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Response 3: EPA agrees with the Commenter that the Agency can approve emission limitations that are based on averaging times that are longer than the 1-hour form of the SO2 NAAQS, provided that they have been demonstrated to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and that they meet other requirements for valid SIP provisions. As explained in the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, if periods of hourly emissions above the critical emissions value are a rare occurrence at a source, and particularly if the magnitude of the emissions, in terms of the emissions rate for each hour in that period, is not substantially higher than the critical emissions value, those periods would be unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality, insofar as they would be very unlikely to occur repeatedly at the times when the meteorology is conducive to high ambient concentrations of SO2. EPA also notes that the Agency has provided the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance to assist states and tribes specifically in the development of attainment plans to address specific issues and challenges relevant to the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS. In this final action, EPA is approving SIP provisions that impose emission limitations with longer term averaging periods because SO2 is a pollutant having characteristics that allow this approach to ensuring attainment of the primary 1-hour standard, as discussed above. EPA continues to believe that the use of longer term averages will not be necessary for sources whose emissions exhibit a low degree of variability and also notes that the approach is not necessarily transferable to other sources, pollutants, or NAAQS with different forms. EPA also notes that the appropriate duration of an averaging period in a SIP provision must take into consideration factors such as the nature of the regulated sources, the purpose of the emission limitation in the SIP provision, and the adequacy of the recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements necessary to make the emission limitation practically and legally enforceable. For example, a longer averaging period may require continuous emissions monitoring (CEMs) in order to provide adequate monitoring of emissions, as is the case in the SO2 emission limitations at issue in this action.

However, the issue of whether the use of a longer term average limit is the only way under which sources could meet the 1-hour NAAQS and account for variability during startup and shutdown periods is not raised by Florida's SIP submittals, and EPA need not reach a conclusion on that issue here in approving Florida's SIP submittals.

III. What action is EPA taking?

Pursuant to CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's attainment plan SIP revisions for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas, as submitted through FL DEP to EPA on April 3, 2015, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is approving SO2 emission limitations and compliance parameters established by the state applicable to the Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Riverview plant and TECO's Big Bend electric generating facility for the Hillsborough Area; and the Rayonier sulfite pulp mill and WestRock CP, LLC kraft pulp mill for the Nassau Area. The state determined that controls for SO2 emissions at Rayonier (i.e. increasing the stack height from the existing level of 110 feet to at least 165 feet for vent gas scrubber EU 005) are appropriate in the Nassau Area for purposes of attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and asserted that these controls represent RACM/RACT. Florida also proposed a supplemental control strategy for the WestRock facility including physical and operational changes to the four largest SO2 emitting units at the facility.6 For sources in the Hillsborough NAA, the state required by permit physical and operational changes to the three sulfuric acid plants (SAP) at the Mosaic facility including increased stack heights and upgrades to the SAP catalyst to meet the SO2 emission limit caps. Additionally, Mosaic is required to eliminate fuel oil use by January 1, 2018 except for periods of natural gas curtailment or disruption. For TECO, FL DEP required by permit that the facility undergo an operational change to increase the SO2 removal efficiencies of the existing flue gas desulfurization systems for its four fossil fuel-fired steam generators to meet the collective enforceable emission limit.

6 FLDEP does not assert that control strategy for WestRock constitute “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.”

In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Florida attainment plan for both the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas includes: An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011) and a 2018 projected emissions inventory; and an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration for each Area includes: Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; a declaration that FL DEP is unaware of any future growth in the area that would be subject to CAA 173, and the assertion that the NNSR program approved in the SIP at Section 62-252.500, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) would account for any such growth; a modeling analysis utilizing an emissions control strategy for Mosaic and TECO in the Hillsborough Area, and Rayonier and WestRock in Nassau Area, that shows attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018, attainment date; a determination that the control strategies for the primary SO2 sources within the nonattainment area constitute RACM/RACT; adherence to a construction schedule to ensure emissions reductions are achieved as expeditiously as practicable; a request from FL DEP that emissions reduction measures including system upgrades and/or emissions limitations with schedules for implementation and compliance parameters be incorporated into the SIP; and contingency measures in the event the two Areas fail to make reasonable further progress or do not attain the SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date.7 Lastly, FL DEP established new SO2 emission limits for the SO2 sources impacting the Hillsborough Area (i.e., Mosaic and TECO), and Nassau Area (i.e., Rayonier and WestRock), in accordance with EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. For the Nassau Area, FL DEP established new SO2 emission limitations for all three primary controlled units (EU 005, 006 and 022) based on a 3-hour rolling average. Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit (No. 0890004-036-AC), Rayonier will increase the stack height from the existing level of 110 ft to at least 165 ft for vent gas scrubber EU 005 and comply with specific SO2 emission limits based on a 3-hour rolling average as determined by CEMS data. SO2 emissions and ambient impacts from the facility by Rayonier's allowable SO2 emissions (total from sum of all three controlled units) will be reduced from 836.5 lb/hr to 502.3 lb/hr, representing a 40 percent decrease. The Rayonier emission limitations for all three controlled units were established in a federally-enforceable air construction permit (No. 0890004-036-AC) and incorporated into the title V operating permit (No. 0890004-042-AV). These source specific requirements are also being incorporated into the SIP with this final action.

7 General Conformity pursuant to CAA section 176(c) requires that actions by federal agencies do not cause new air quality issues or delay or interfere with attainment of a NAAQS. With respect to both nonattainment areas, federal agencies must work with the state to ensure that federal actions conform to the air quality plans established in the applicable SIP that ensures attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.

Based on the conditions of the construction permit (No. 0890003-046-AC), WestRock will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient impacts from the facility by upgrading the combustion air system for recovery boilers, adding a white liquor scrubber system, and construction of a non-condensable gas pipeline to the No. 7 Power Boiler. WestRock's allowable SO2 emissions from EU 006, the power boiler No. 5, will be reduced from 550 lb/hr to 15 lb/hr representing a 97 percent decrease. These source specific requirements were included in a federally-enforceable permit and are being incorporated into the SIP through this final action. Compliance with the new emission limitations for both sources will be demonstrated by certified CEMs data.

Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit No. 0570008-080-AC, Mosaic will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient impacts from the facility by eliminating the use of fuel oil at the plant except during periods of natural gas curtailment or disruption, changing the catalysts in the converters in sulfuric acid plants Nos. 7, 8, and 9 (which will lower SO2 emissions while not increasing sulfuric acid mist emissions; existing permitted production capacities of the sulfuric acid plants will remain unchanged); increase the stack height of each sulfuric acid plant to no lower than 65 meters (213.25 feet), which is equivalent to approximately a 60-foot increase per stack and comply with specific SO2 emissions caps based on a 24-hour average as determined by CEMs data. Mosaic's new SO2 emission limitations will reduce the allowable SO2 emissions from all three sulfuric acid plants collectively from 1140 lb/hr to a maximum of 575 lb/hr as a block 24-hour average. These emission limits cover various operating scenarios, including individual unit emissions limits, which remain unchanged from the current permit, along with two-unit and three-unit total limits. These new emission limitations were included in the federally-enforceable construction permit No. 0570008-080-AC and will be incorporated into the title V permit upon renewal. These requirements are also being incorporated into the SIP in this final action.

Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit No. 0570039-074-AC, TECO will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient impacts from the facility by replacing existing fuel igniters and associated equipment to allow specified units to burn natural gas instead of fuel oil during startup, shutdown, and flame stabilization and comply with an SO2 emissions cap of 3,162 lbs/hour based on a 30-day rolling average for all fossil-fuel-fired electrical generating units (Units 1-4 combined). TECO's new combined allowable SO2 emissions from TECO EUs 001-004 will be reduced from 6587.6 lb/hr (based on total individual unit emission limits) to 3,162 lb/hr, representing a 52 percent decrease. TECO's new SO2 emission limit became effective June 1, 2016, as required in the federally-enforceable air construction permit (No. 0570039-074-AC), and is also being incorporated into the SIP in this final action. Compliance with the new emission limitations for both sources will be demonstrated by certified CEMs data.

EPA has determined that the attainment plans for SO2 for the Nassau and Hillsborough Areas meet the applicable requirements of sections 110, 172 and 191-192 of the CAA. Thus, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's attainment plans for both Areas including the specific SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters established for the two SO2 point sources impacting the Nassau Area (Rayonier and WestRock) and the two sources affecting the Hillsborough Area (Mosaic and TECO). EPA's analysis of both attainment SIPs are discussed in detail in EPA's August 23, 2016, proposed rulemakings. See 81 FR 57522 and 81 FR 57535.

EPA finds that appropriately set longer term average limits provide a reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans may provide for attainment. Based on its review of this general information as well as the particular information in Florida's April 3, 2015, attainment SIP, the EPA believes, that the 24-hour and 30-day average limits for Mosaic and TECO respectively for the Hillsborough Area and the 3-hour average limit for WestRock and Rayonier in the Nassau Area provide for attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard.

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 into Florida's SIP the specified, new operating parameters, SO2 emission caps, compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for emission units EU004, EU005 and EU006 at Mosaic (Permit No. 0570008-080-AC), EU001, EU002, EU003, EU004 at TECO (Permit No. 0570039-074-AC), EU005, EU006 and EU002 at Rayonier (Permit No. 0890004-036-AC) and EU006, EU015, EU007 and EU011 at WestRock (Permit No. 0890003-046-AC). The SO2 emission standards specified in each permit are the basis for the SO2 attainment demonstration in the SIP.

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.8 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

8 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

V. Final Action

EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's SO2 attainment plans for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas. EPA has determined that both attainment SIPs meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is approving Florida's April 3, 2015, SIP submissions, which include the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for both nonattainment Areas. Additionally, EPA is approving into the Florida SIP specific SO2 emission limits with longer-term averaging times and operating and compliance parameters established for the two sets of SO2 point sources impacting the Nassau and Hillsborough Areas. EPA has concluded that Florida has appropriately demonstrated that attainment with the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS will occur in the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas by the applicable attainment dates, and that the plans meet the applicable requirements under sections 110, 172, and 191-192 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: June 16, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

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

Subpart K—Florida 2. Section 52.520 is amended by: a. In paragraph (d), adding four new entries for “Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC,” “Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC,” “Tampa Electric Company—Big Bend Station,” and “WestRock, LLC” at the end of the table. b. In paragraph (e), adding two new entries for “2010 1-hour SO2 Attainment Demonstration for the Hillsborough Area” and “2010 1-hour SO2 Attainment Demonstration for the Nassau Area” at the end of the table.

The additions read as follows:

§ 52.520 Identification of plan.

(d) * * *

EPA Approved Florida Source-Specific Requirements Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Air Permit No. 0570008-080-AC 1/15/2015 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication] Specific Conditions pertaining to: EU004; EU005; and EU006. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC Air Permit No. 0890004-036-AC 4/12/2012 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication] Specific Conditions pertaining to: EU005; EU006; and EU022. Tampa Electric Company—Big Bend Station Air Permit No. 0570039-074-AC 2/26/2015 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication] Specific Conditions pertaining to: EU001; EU002; EU003 and EU004. WestRock, LLC Air Permit No. 0890003-046-AC 1/9/2015 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication] Specific Conditions pertaining to: EU006; EU015; EU007 and EU011.

(e) * * *

EPA Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions Provision State effective date EPA approval date Federal Register
  • notice
  • Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2010 1-hour SO2 Attainment Demonstration for the Hillsborough Area 4/3/2015 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication] 2010 1-hour SO2 Attainment Demonstration for the Nassau Area 4/3/2015 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication]
    [FR Doc. 2017-13892 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0060; FRL-9955-06-Region 2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; administrative change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the format for materials submitted by New Jersey that have been incorporated by reference (IBR) into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations and other materials affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by New Jersey and approved by EPA as SIP revisions.

    This format revision will primarily affect the “Identification of plan” section as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the EPA Region 2 Office. EPA is also adding a table in the “Identification of plan” section, which summarizes the approval actions that EPA has taken on the regulatory and non-regulatory portions of the New Jersey SIP.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866; or the National Archives and Records Administration. Please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information for Region 2 SIP materials. 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:

    Raymond K. Forde, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3716.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. Description of a SIP B. How EPA Enforces SIPs C. How the State and EPA Update the SIP D. How EPA Compiles the SIP E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation G. The Format of the New Identification of Plan Section H. When a State SIP Revision Becomes Part of the SIP and Federally Enforceable I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision Approvals II. What is EPA doing in this action? III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. Description of a SIP

    In accordance with Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7410, each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409. SIPs contain numerous elements such as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

    B. How EPA Enforces SIPs

    Before formally adopting rules that contain required control measures and strategies as part of a SIP, each state must provide the public with an opportunity to comment on them. The states then submit these rules to EPA as requested SIP revisions, on which EPA must formally act.

    If and when these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA after notice and comment rulemaking, they become enforceable by EPA, and are incorporated into the federally approved SIP and identified in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans) (40 CFR part 52). The actual state regulations approved by EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference,” which has the same effect as including the entire state regulation in part 52. Incorporation by reference indicates that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date, and that EPA, in addition to the state, may enforce that regulation once it takes effect and is formally a part of the SIP. This format allows both EPA and the public to know which state measures are contained in a given SIP and are therefore federally enforceable. It also helps identify the specific requirements that the state is implementing to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

    C. How the State and EPA Update the SIP

    The SIP is periodically revised as necessary to address the specific or unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time takes action on state SIP submissions containing new and/or revised regulations and other materials; if approved, they become 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).

    As a result, EPA began the process of developing the following: (1) A revised SIP document for each state that would be incorporated by reference under the provisions of title 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the IBR document and the CFR; and (3) a revised format of the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures. 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.

    D. How EPA Compiles the SIP

    The federally approved regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory provisions (entirely or portions of) submitted by each state agency and approved by EPA have been organized into a “SIP compilation.” The compilation is contained in three-ring binders and will be updated, primarily on an annual basis. The New Jersey SIP compilation is available at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office: 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007; (212) 637-4249.

    E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation

    Each SIP compilation contains three parts approved by EPA: Part one contains regulations, part two contains source-specific requirements, and part three contains nonregulatory provisions. Each state's SIP compilation contains a table of identifying information for each of these three parts. In this action, EPA is publishing the tables summarizing the applicable SIP requirements for New Jersey. The effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent state revision of each regulation. The EPA Region 2 Office has the primary responsibility for updating the compilation and ensuring its accuracy.

    F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation

    EPA's Region 2 Office developed and will maintain the compilation for New Jersey. A copy of the full text of New Jersey's regulatory and source-specific compilations will also be maintained at NARA.

    G. The Format of the New Identification of Plan Section

    In order to better serve the public, EPA revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section and included additional information to clarify which provisions are the enforceable elements of the SIP. The revised Identification of plan section contains five subsections: (a) Purpose and scope, (b) Incorporation by reference, (c) EPA-approved regulations, (d) EPA-approved source-specific requirements, and (e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutes, control strategies, and monitoring networks.

    H. When a State SIP Revision Becomes Part of the SIP and Federally Enforceable

    All revisions to the applicable SIP become federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of the applicable Identification of plan section found in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52.

    I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision Approvals

    To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and provide a smooth transition to the new SIP compilation, EPA has retained the original Identification of plan section, previously appearing in the CFR as the first or second section of part 52 for each state subpart. After an initial two-year period, EPA will review its experience with the new table format and will decide whether or not to retain the historical Identification of plan appendices for some further period.

    II. What is EPA doing in this action?

    This rule constitutes a reformatting exercise to ensure that all revisions to the state programs and accompanying SIP that have already occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are subject to the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51. When EPA receives a formal SIP revision request, the Agency must publish its proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide for public comment before approval.

    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 reorganizes and codifies provisions that are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. Accordingly, we find that public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” under section 553 of the APA, since the reorganization and codification of the revised format for denoting IBR of the state materials into the SIP only reflects existing law and since immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations from the CFR.

    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 New Jersey regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov, NARA, and the EPA Region 2 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 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).

    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).

    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 New Jersey SIP compilations 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” reorganization update action for the State of New Jersey.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 2, 2017. Catherine R. McCabe, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart FF—New Jersey
    § 52.1570 [Redesignated as § 52.1587]
    2. Redesignate § 52.1570 as § 52.1587, and in newly redesignated § 52.1587, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 52.1587 Original identification of plan section.

    (a) This section identifies the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of New Jersey” and all revisions submitted by New Jersey that were Federally approved prior to October 1, 2016.

    3. A new § 52.1570 is added to read as follows:
    § 52.1570 Identification of plan.

    (a) Purpose and scope. This section sets forth the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) for New Jersey under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and 40 CFR part 51 to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to October 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 October 1, 2016 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 2 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.

    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the state implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007. To obtain the material, please call the Regional Office. You may also inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to October 1, 2016 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.

    EPA-Approved New Jersey State Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Comments Title 7, Chapter 26, Subchapter 2A Additional, Specific Disposal Regulations for Sanitary Landfills June 1, 1987 June 29, 1990, 55 FR 26687 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 1 General Provisions May 1, 1956 May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10880 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 2 Control and Prohibition of Open Burning June 8, 1981 September 30, 1981, 46 FR 47779 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 3 Control and Prohibition of Smoke from Combustion of Fuel October 12, 1977 January 27, 1984, 49 FR 3463 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 4 Control and Prohibition of Particles from Combustion of Fuel April 20, 2009 August 3, 2010, 75 FR 45483 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 5 Prohibition of Air Pollution October 12, 1977 January 27, 1984, 49 FR 3463 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 6 Control and Prohibition of Particles from Manufacturing Processes (except section 6.5) May 23, 1977 January 26, 1979, 44 FR 5425 Section 6.5, “Variances,” is not approved (40 CFR 52. 52.1587(c)(20) and 52.1604(a)). Any State-issued variances must be formally incorporated as SIP revisions if EPA is to be bound to their provisions (40 CFR 52.1604(a)). Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 7 Sulfur March 1, 1967 May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10880 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 8 Permits and Certificates, Hearings, and Confidentiality April 5, 1985 November 25, 1986, 51 FR 42565 Title 7, Chapter 27, Section 8.11 Permits and Certificates, Hearings, and Confidentiality March 2, 1992 April 15, 1994, 59 FR 17933 Title 7, Chapter 27, Sections 8.1 and 8.2 Permits and Certificates, Hearings, and Confidentiality June 20, 1994 August 7, 1997, 62 FR 42412 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 9 Sulfur in Fuels September 20, 2010 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 Sulfur dioxide “bubble” permits issued by the State pursuant to Section 9.2 and not waived under the provisions of Section 9.4 become applicable parts of the SIP only after receiving EPA approval as a SIP revision. Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 10 Sulfur in Solid Fuels April 20, 2009 August 3, 2010, 75 FR 45483 Notification of “large zone 3 coal conversions” must be provided to EPA (40 CFR 52.1601(b)). Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 11 Incinerators August 15, 1968 May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10880 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 12 Prevention and Control of Air Pollution Emergencies March 27, 1972 May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10880 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 13 Ambient Air Quality Standards June 25, 1985 November 25, 1986, 51 FR 42565 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 14, Sections 14.2(old) Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles July 1, 1985 June 13, 1986, 51 FR 21549 On September 15, 1997, Section 14.2 was re-numbered to 14.6. The State did not submit this change as a SIP revision. Therefore, the July 1, 1985, version of Section 14.2 will continue to be the EPA-approved regulation. Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 14, Section 14.1 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles July 2, 2007 April 17, 2009, 74 FR 17781 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 14, Section 14.2 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles September 15, 1997 April 17, 2009, EPA approval finalized at 74 FR 17781 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 14, Section 14.3 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles July 2, 2007 April 17, 2009, EPA approval finalized at 74 FR 17781 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 15 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Gasoline-Fueled Motor Vehicles November 16, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 16 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds April 20, 2009 August 3, 2010, 75 FR 45483 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 17 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic Substances June 20, 1994 August 7, 1997, 62 FR 42412 Subchapter 17 is included in the SIP only as it relates to the control of perchloroethylene. Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 18 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from New or Altered Sources Affecting Ambient Air Quality (Emission Offset Rules) March 15, 1993 July 25, 1996, 61 FR 38591 See July 25, 1996, for items not included in this limited approval. Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 19 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen April 20, 2009, as corrected on June 15, 2009 and July 6, 2009 August 3, 2010, 75 FR 45483 Subchapter 19 is approved into the SIP except for the following provisions: (1) Phased compliance plan through repowering in Section 19.21 that allows for implementation beyond May 1, 1999; and (2) phased compliance plan through the use of innovative control technology in Section 19.23 that allows for implementation beyond May 1, 1999. Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 21 Emission Statements April 20, 2009 August 3, 2010, 75 FR 45483 Section 7:27-21.3(b)(1) and 7:27-21.3(b)(2) of New Jersey's Emission Statement rule requires facilities to report on the following pollutants to assist the State in air quality planning needs: Hydrochloric acid, hydrazine, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, 1, 1, 1 trichloroethane, carbon dioxide and methane. EPA will not take SIP-related enforcement action on these pollutants. Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 23 Prevention of Air Pollution from Architectural Coatings December 29, 2008 December 22, 2010, 75 FR 80340 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 24 Prevention of Air Pollution from Consumer Products December 29, 2008 December 22, 2010, 75 FR 80340 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 25 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Vehicular Fuels December 29, 2008 December 22, 2010, 75 FR 80340 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 26 Prevention of Air Pollution from Adhesives, Sealants, Adhesive Primers and Sealant Primers December 29, 2008 December 22, 2010, 75 FR 80340 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 29 Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program January 17, 2006 February 13, 2008, 73 FR 8200 In Section 29.13(g), Title 13, Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 1961.1 of the California Code of Regulations relating to greenhouse gas emission standards, is not incorporated into the SIP. Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 30 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOX Trading Program July 16, 2007 October 1, 2007, 72 FR 55672 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 31 NOX Budget Program July 16, 2007 October 1, 2007, 72 FR 55672 Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 34 TBAC Emissions Reporting December 29, 2008 December 22, 2010, 75 FR 80340 Title 7, Chapter 27B, Subchapter 3 Air Test Method 3: Sampling and Analytic Procedures for the Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds from Source Operations June 20, 1994 August 7, 1997, 62 FR 42412 Title 7, Chapter 27B, Subchapter 5 Air Test Method 5: Testing Procedures for Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles November 16, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 7, Sections: 7.1. 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 Vehicle Inspection October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 24, Section 20 Motorcycles October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 26, Sections 26.2 and 26.16 Compliance with Diesel Emission Standards and Equipment, Periodic Inspection Program for Diesel Emissions, and Self-Inspection of Certain Classes of Motor Vehicles October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 28, Sections 28.3, 28.4 and 28.6 Inspection of New Motor Vehicles October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 29, Sections 29.1, 29.2 and 29.3 Mobile Inspection Unit October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 32 Inspection Standards and Test Procedures to be Used by Official Inspection Facilities October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 33 Inspection Standards and Test Procedures to be Used by Licensed Private Inspection Facilities October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 43 Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 44 Private Inspection Facility Licensing October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 20, Subchapter 45 Motor Vehicle Emission Repair Facility Registration October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 13, Chapter 21, Subchapter 5, Section 5.12 Registration Plate Decals December 6, 1999 January 22, 2002, 67 FR 2811 Title 13, Chapter 21, Subchapter 15, Sections 15.8 and 15.12 New Jersey Licensed Motor Vehicle Dealers October 19, 2009 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 16, Chapter 53 Autobus Specifications September 26, 1983 June 13, 1986, 51 FR 21549 Only Sections 3.23, 3.24, 3.27, 6.15, 6.21, 6.30, 7.14, 7.17, 7.23, 8.15, 8.22, 8.25 are approved. Title 39, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1 Motor Vehicle Inspections Exceptions July 1, 2010 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 39, Chapter 8, Subchapter 2 Inspection of Motor Vehicles; Rules, Regulations July 1, 2010 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263 Title 39, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3 Certificate of Approval, Issuance; Owner's Obligation for Safety July 1, 2010 March 15, 2012, 77 FR 15263

    (d) EPA approved State source-specific requirements.

    EPA-Approved New Jersey Source-Specific Provisions Name of source Identifier No. State effective date EPA approval date Comments Johnson Matthey 55270 June 13, 1995 January 17, 1997, 62 FR 2581 NOX RACT Facility Specific NOX Emission Limits NJAC 7:27-9.13. Multi-chamber metals recovery furnace, installation of low NOX burner. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation 104855 March 23, 1995 January 17, 1997, 62 FR 2581 NOX RACT Facility Specific NOX Emission Limits NJAC 7:27-9.13. Controlled air combustion small trash from fired boiler energy recovery system. PSEG Fossil Hudson Generation Station BOP110001 March 8, 2011 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 NOX, SO2, PM10 BART source specific control units: U1-OS1 (cyclone boiler (shutdown)), U1-OS2 (dry bottom wall-fired boiler), U15-OS(coal receiving system), U16-OS (coal reclaim system). Conoco Phillips (Facility is now Phillips 66.) BOP110001 September 21, 2011 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 NOX, SO2 and PM10 BART source specific control units: OS1-E241, OS2-E243, OS3-E245, OS4-E246, OS5-E247, OS6-E248, OS7-E249, OS8-E250, OS11-E242, OS13-E253, and OS15-E258 (process heaters). Vineland Municipal Electric Utility—Howard M. Down BOP110001 September 26, 2011 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 NOX, SO2 and PM10 BART source specific control units: U10-OS2(fuel oil boiler retired September 1, 2012), U10-OS3 (turbine (shutdown)), and U22-OS (emergency generator). BL England Generating Station (Facility is now RC Cape May.) BOP100003 December 16, 2010 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 NOX, SO2 and PM10 BART source specific control units: U1-OS1(wet bottom coal-fired boiler (shutdown)), U2-OS1 (cyclone wet bottom coal fired boiler), U3-OS1 (oil-fired tangential boiler), U6-OS1 (emergency fire water pump engine), U7-OS1, U7-OS2, U7-OS4, U7-OS5, U7-OS6, U7-OS7,U7-OS10, U7-OS11, U7-OS12 (coal handling systems) and U8-OS1 (cooling tower). Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company 85004 November 22, 1994 October 20, 1998, 63 FR 55949 Approving NOX RACT Source Specific regulations NJAC 7:27-19.13 Cupola and Annealing Oven processes. Effective date 12/21/98. Trigen-Trenton Energy Co 61015 January 11, 2007 July 16, 2008, 73 FR 40752 Alternative NOX Emission Limit pursuant to NJAC 7:27-19.13 For 2 Cooper Bessemer Distillate Oil or Dual Fired 4 stroke Diesel Internal Combustion Engines. PSE&G Nuclear Hope Creek and Salem Generating Stations Cooling Tower BOP050003 August 7, 2007 Significant Modification Approval April 1, 2009, 74 FR 14734 TSP/PM 10 Source Specific Variance to SIP NJAC 7:27-6.5 Cooling Tower Unit 24, OS1 Effective Date 5/1/2009. Co-Steel Corp of Sayreville (Formerly New Jersey Steel Corporation) 15076 September 3, 1997 November 12, 2003, 68 FR 63991 NOX Source specific emission limit under NJAC 7:27-19.13 for Electric arc furnace, melt shop metallurgy and billet reheat furnace sources. Effective date 12/13/2003.

    (e) EPA approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions.

    EPA-Approved New Jersey Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions SIP element Applicable geographic or nonattainment area New Jersey submittal date EPA approval date Explanation New Jersey NOX SIP Call Budget Demonstration Statewide April 26, 1999 and supplemented on July 31, 2000 May 22, 2001, 66 FR 28063 2002 and 2005 Reasonable Further Progress Plans New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas April 11, 2001 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 2007 Reasonable Further Progress Plans New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island 1-hour ozone nonattainment area April 11, 2001 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 2002, 2005 and 2007 Transportation Conformity Budgets New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Severe and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas April 11, 2001 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 Updated 1990, 1996, 1999, 2002 and 2005 General Conformity Emissions Budget McGuire Air Force Base April 11, 2001 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 2002, 2005 and 2007 Ozone Projection Year Emission Inventories New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas April 11, 2001 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 1996 Base Year Emission Inventories Statewide and New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Severe and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas April 11, 2001 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 RACM Analysis New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Severe and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas October 16, 2001 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 1-Hour ozone Attainment Demonstration for 2007 New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Severe and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 1-hour ozone nonattainment area August 31 and October 16, 1998 and April 26, 2000 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 1-Hour ozone Attainment Demonstration for 2005 New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 1-hour ozone nonattainment area August 31 and October 16, 1998 and April 26, 2000 February 4, 2002, 67 FR 5152 CO Attainment Demonstration and Redesignation Request New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island 8-hour CO nonattainment area January 15, 2002 August 23, 2002, 67 FR 54574 1996 CO Attainment Inventory New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island 8-hour CO nonattainment area August 7, 1998 and supplemented on October 1, 2001 and January 15, 2002 August 23, 2002, 67 FR 54574 2007 and 2014 CO Projection Inventories New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island 8-hour CO nonattainment area January 15, 2002 August 23, 2002, 67 FR 54574 1997, 2007 and 2014 Transportation Conformity Budgets New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island 8-hour CO nonattainment area December 10, 1999 and January 15, 2002 August 23, 2002, 67 FR 54574 Redesignation request to attainment for the CO nonattainment area New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island 8-hour CO nonattainment area November 15, 1992, October 4, 2003 and August 7, 1998 and supplemented on October 1, 2001 and January 15, 2002 August 23, 2002, 67 FR 54574 CO Maintenance Plan Atlantic, Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Salem and Somerset (the 9 non-classified areas) and Camden County, in New Jersey. CO NAAQS May 18, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 2002 CO Attainment Inventory Atlantic, Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Salem and Somerset (the 9 non-classified areas) and Camden County, in New Jersey. CO NAAQS May 18, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 1997 and 2007 CO Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Atlantic, Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Salem and Somerset (the 9 non-classified areas) and Camden County, in New Jersey. CO NAAQS May 21, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 2007 and 2014 CO Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets Five county New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island CO nonattainment area May 18, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 2002 VOC, NOX and CO ozone season and annual emissions inventory State-wide May 18, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 2002 PM2.5 and associated precursors annual emissions inventory New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island PM2.5 nonattainment area and statewide May 18, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 2005 and 2007 VOC, NOX and Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area May 18, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 Updated 1990, 1996, 1999, 2002 and 2005 General Conformity Emissions Budget McGuire Air Force Base May 18, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 2005 and 2007 VOC and NOX Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area May 18, 2006 July 10, 2006, 71 FR 38770 2008 VOC and NOX Projection Inventories New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment areas October 29, 2007 May 15, 2009, 74 FR 22837 2008 Reasonably Further Progress Plans New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment areas October 29, 2007 May 15, 2009, 74 FR 22837 RACM Analysis New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment areas October 29, 2007 May 15, 2009, 74 FR 22837 2008 VOC and NOX Transportation Conformity Budgets New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment areas October 29, 2007 May 15, 2009, 74 FR 22837 2008-2011 VOC and NOX General Conformity Budgets McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst Naval Air Station October 29, 2007 May 15, 2009, 74 FR 22837 RACT Analysis State-wide August 1, 2007 May 15, 2009, 74 FR 22837 Regional Haze Plan from 2002-2018 State-wide July 28, 2009 and supplemented on December 9, 2010, March 2, 2011 and December 7, 2011 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 2002 and 2018 Regional Haze Modeling and Projection Inventory State-wide July 28, 2009 and supplemented on December 9, 2010, March 2, 2011 and December 7, 2011 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 Reasonable Progress Goals Visibility Demonstration State-wide July 28, 2009 and supplemented on December 9, 2010, March 2, 2011 and December 7, 2011 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 BART Analysis State-wide July 28, 2009 and supplemented on December 9, 2010, March 2, 2011 and December 7, 2011 January 3, 2012, 77 FR 19 8-hour ozone Attainment Demonstration New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas October 29, 2007 February 11, 2013, 78 FR 9596 NJ Infrastructure SIP 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 Standards February 25, 2008 and supplemented on January 15, 2010 June 14, 2013, 78 FR 35764 Redesignation Request New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT and New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas December 26, 2012 and supplemented on May 3, 2013 September 4, 2013, 78 FR 54396 PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT and New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas December 26, 2012 and supplemented on May 3, 2013 September 4, 2013, 78 FR 54396 2007 Annual Attainment Inventory for PM2.5 and the associated PM2.5 precursors New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT and New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas December 26, 2012 and supplemented on May 3, 2013 September 4, 2013, 78 FR 54396 2017 (Interim) and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX Annual Projection Inventories New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT and New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas December 26, 2012 and supplemented on May 3, 2013 September 4, 2013, 78 FR 54396 2009 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX Annual Emissions Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT and New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas December 26, 2012 and supplemented on May 3, 2013 September 4, 2013, 78 FR 54396 CO Limited Maintenance Plan New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island CO nonattainment area June 11, 2015 and February 2016 July 1, 2016, 81 FR 43096 2007 CO Attainment inventory New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island CO nonattainment area June 11, 2015 and February 2016 July 1, 2016, 81 FR 43096
    § 52.1605 [Removed and Reserved]
    4. Section 52.1605 is removed and reserved.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13657 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0166; FRL-9964-35-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; FL: Revisions to New Source Review, Definitions and Small Business Assistance Programs AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve changes to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) to update definitions and make administrative edits to regulations for the Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) and Florida's Small Business Assistance program (SBA). EPA is proposing to approve portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on July 1, 2011, to update definitions and make administrative edits to PALs and the SBA. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective September 1, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 2, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0166 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What action is EPA taking?

    On July 1, 2011, FDEP submitted to EPA for approval a SIP revision that involves changes to Florida's regulations related to permitting and administrative procedures, among other changes. In this action, EPA is approving the portions of the Florida submission that make changes to definitions affecting the major New Source Review (NSR) program, changes to other miscellaneous definitions, and administrative changes to Florida's NSR PAL provisions and SBA program. Florida's NSR program, which applies to the construction and modification of any major stationary source in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable as required by part C and part D of title I of the CAA, is modified with this direct final action at Rule 62-210.200, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), “Definitions,” and 62-212.720, “Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs).” EPA is also approving miscellaneous changes to definitions. Finally, EPA is approving the portion of the July 1, 2011, submission that revises Rule 62-210.220, “Small Business Assistance Program,” which provides for compliance assistance for qualifying small business stationary sources.

    Changes in the July 1, 2011, submission made to Rule 62-212.400, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” were approved on June 15, 2012 (77 FR 35862). The June 15, 2012, final rule also approved the NSR definition of “major modification,” at Rule 62-210.200(186) included in the July 1, 2011, SIP submission.

    At this time, the Agency is not acting on the following changes included in the July 1, 2011, submission at Rule 62-210.200, “Definitions”: (28), “animal crematory,” (41), “biological waste,” (42), “biological waste incinerator,” (44), “biomedical waste,” and (158), “human crematory.” EPA is also not acting on the changes made to rules in Chapter 62-296, “Stationary Sources—Emission Standards,” included in the July 1, 2011, submission. EPA will consider these remaining portions of the July 1, 2011, submission in a separate action.

    II. Background

    This direct final action will update Florida's definitions and make changes to rules approved into the SIP. Changes made to definitions are related to basic definitions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors and minor edits to permitting and NSR terms. Definitions are also partly renumbered with the July 1, 2011, submission. The changes made to the regulations, other than definitions, are administrative in nature, including updating internal references.

    III. Analysis of Florida's SIP Revision A. Rule 62-210.200—Definitions

    Florida's July 1, 2011, SIP revision makes changes to definitions for criteria air pollutants and their precursors. Florida adds a definition at Rule 62-210.200(211) for “nitrogen oxides” to be consistent with EPA regulations, referencing test methods at 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60 (40 CFR part 60). The July 1, 2011, SIP submittal revises the definition of “PM10,” or “particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers,” at Rule 62-210.200(235), renumbered from (221), correcting a typographical error to reference EPA test methods at 40 CFR part 51, subpart M. Finally, the July 1, 2011, SIP revision changes the definition of “Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” at Rule 62-210.200(326), renumbered from (306). This change for VOC incorporates the federal definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) by reference rather than requiring the State to periodically incorporate individual changes to the federal definition. These changes to definitions became state effective on October 12, 2008.

    The July 1, 2011, SIP revision made changes to definitions related to NSR to correct typographical errors, to make internal references consistent, renumber definitions, and make minor administrative edits. Florida changed the definition of “best available control technology,” at Rule 62-210.200(40), by correcting a typographical error carried over from a previous revision. No substantive change was made to the SIP-approved definition, and the minor edits became state effective on October 12, 2008. The July 1, 2011, SIP revision also changed the definition of “federally enforceable,” at Rule 62-210.200(136), renumbered from (124), to clarify citations to rules under which federally enforceable permits are issued or were historically issued. This change to “federally enforceable” became state effective on February 11, 1999. Florida also revised the definition of “modification” at Rule 62-210.200(199), renumbered from (183), to remove references to non-SIP related uses of the term. In addition to removing references to 40 CFR part 60 (New Source Performance Standards), 40 CFR part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), and CAA section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants), a reference to 40 CFR part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans) is removed from this definition. However, the remaining portion of the SIP-approved definition is nonetheless consistent with the definition as used under 40 CFR part 52. This change became state effective on February 11, 1999. The Florida submittal revises the definition of “net emissions increase” at Rule 62-210.200(204), renumbered from (179) and state effective on October 12, 2008, to correct typographical errors and to remove numbered citations to other definitions within Rule 62-210.200, adding explicit references for “actual emissions” and “baseline actual emissions” within the definition instead. No substantive changes are made to the definition of “net emissions increase.” Florida also modifies the definition of “regulated air pollutant” at Rule 62-210.200(255), renumbered from (237), to make an administrative edit that corrected “any volatile organic compound” to “volatile organic compounds” to be consistent with EPA use of the collective term. This change to “regulated air pollutant” became state effective on October 12, 2008. Finally, the July 1, 2011, submittal revises the definition of “significant impact” at Rule 62-210.200(275), renumbered from (253) and state effective on November 13, 1997, to correct a typographical error. Florida's definition of “significant impact” largely corresponds with EPA's provisions for significant impact levels (SILs) for pollutants impacting nonattainment areas at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), but Florida includes a SIL for lead, which has never been included in the federal provision. With this SIP revision, Florida is removing SILs under lead for 1-hour periods and 8-hour periods, which were carried over in error from the carbon monoxide SIL, as well as an additional typographical error. No substantive change is made to the SIP-approved definition.

    EPA is approving these changes to definitions in the Florida SIP, which became state effective at the following dates as described above: November 13, 1997, February 11, 1999, and October 12, 2008. The renumbering of definitions, which is the final change to Rule 62-210.200 included in the SIP revision, became state effective on March 11, 2010.

    B. Rule 62-210.220—Small Business Assistance Program

    The July 1, 2011, submittal makes changes to Florida's SBA program at Rule 62-210.220(2)(c) by updating obsolete references to State rules and updating the reference to Chapter 28-106, F.A.C. The SBA program previously referenced Florida Chapter 62-103, “Rules of Administrative Procedure,” for sources responding to determinations or petitioning for determinations to be included in the SBA program. The State adopted new rules at Chapter 28-106, “Decisions Determining Substantial Interests,” on April 1, 1997. The new Chapter repealed Rule 62-103 and made these types of administrative procedures standard across all Florida state agencies. The SIP revision is administrative in nature and became state effective on February 11, 1999. EPA is approving this change to make references to State rules consistent in the SIP.

    C. Rule 62-212.720—Plantwide Applicability Limits

    The July 1, 2011, submittal revises the PAL provisions only to correct an error at Rule 62-212.720(1). The introductory paragraph affected previously referenced a non-existent definition at Rule 62-210.200, and the reference was deleted. This revision is administrative in nature and became state effective on October 6, 2008. EPA is approving this change into the Florida SIP.

    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 Florida Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C. entitled “Definitions,” effective March 11, 2010, to add definitions and make administrative updates, Rule 62-210.220, F.A.C., entitled “Small Business Assistance Program,” effective October 6, 2008, to correct internal references, and Rule 62-210.720, F.A.C., entitled “Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs),” which corrects an error effective December 17, 2013.1 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.2 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    1 The state effective date of the change to Rule 62-210.720, F.A.C. made in Florida's July 1, 2011, SIP revision is October 6, 2008. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR 52.520(c), that change to Florida's rule is captured and superseded by Florida's update in a December 19, 2013, SIP revision, state effective on December 17, 2013, which EPA previously approved on May 19, 2014. See 78 FR 28607.

    2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP because they are consistent with the CFR and the CAA. Because these changes are administrative and insignificant in nature, they are in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 1, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 2, 2017.

    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 1, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Are 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);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • do 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).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 15, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart K—Florida 2. Section 52.520(c) is amended under Chapter 62-210 and 62-212 by revising entries for “62-210.200,” “62-210.220,” and “62-212.720” to read as follows:
    § 52.520 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Florida Regulations State citation (section) Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 62-210 Stationary Sources—General Requirements *         *         *         *         *         *         * 62-210.200 Definitions 3/11/10 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication] 62-210.220 Small Business Assistance Program 10/6/08 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 62-212 Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review *         *         *         *         *         *         * 62-212.720 Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 12/17/13 7/3/2017 [Insert citation of publication] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-13862 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0726; FRL-9960-08-Region 9] Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Mendocino County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on four permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (“MCAQMD” or “the District”) portion of the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of California pursuant to requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of one rule and finalizing approval of the remaining three permitting rules. The amended rules govern the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and permitting of minor sources, and major sources and major modifications under part C of title I of the Act. The limited disapproval action triggers an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the specific New Source Review (NSR) program deficiencies unless California submits and we approve SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies within two years of the final action.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective on August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0726. 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., 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:

    Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972-3534 or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    On December 27, 2016 (81 FR 95074), the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval (LA/LD) or a full approval (as noted in the table) of the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the Mendocino County portion of the California SIP.

    Table 1—Submitted NSR Rules Rule No. Rule title Amended/adopted Submitted Proposed action 1-130 Definitions 9/20/16 11/15/16 Full Approval. 1-200 Permit Requirements 9/20/16 11/15/16 Full Approval. 1-220 New Source Review Standards (Including PSD Evaluations) 9/20/16 11/15/16 LA/LD. 1-230 Action on Applications 9/20/16 11/15/16 Full Approval.

    We proposed a full approval of Rules 1-130, 1-200 and 1-230 because we determined that these rules improve the SIP and are consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We proposed a limited approval of Rule 1-220 because we determined that the rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval of Rule 1-220 because some rule provisions conflict with part C of the Act. These provisions include the following:

    A. Rule 1-220 does not contain any provisions specifying that required air quality modeling shall be based on the applicable models, databases, and other requirements specified in Part 51 Appendix W; therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(l) have not been meet.

    B. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2) have not been met because the rule does not include the necessary information about a source's obligations.

    II. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Rule 1-220 and a full approval of Rules 1-130, 1-200 and 1-230. This action incorporates the submitted rules into the Mendocino County portion of the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of Rule 1-220.

    As a result, the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule within 24 months. EPA staff are coordinating with Mendocino County AQMD and expect resolution of the deficiencies before a FIP would be required.

    In addition, because we are finalizing our proposed action, the California Infrastructure SIP deficiencies identified in our April 2016 (81 FR 18766) rulemaking with respect to Mendocino County AQMD for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are remedied. Therefore, we are updating the Mendocino County portion of the California SIP accordingly.

    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 MCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 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 September 1, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 1, 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—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 F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(119)(ii)(C), (c)(158)(i)(D), and (c)(489) and removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(171)(i)(A) and (c)(385)(i)(A) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan—in part.

    (c) * * *

    (119) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (C) Previously approved on June 18, 1982 in paragraph (c)(119)(ii)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(489)(i)(A)(4) of this section, Rule 230.

    (158) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (D) Previously approved on July 31, 1985 in paragraph (c)(158)(i)(B) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(489)(i)(A)(3) of this section, Chapter II, 220 (a)(2) and (b)(3, 4, 6, 8 and 9).

    (171) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) [Reserved]

    (385) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) [Reserved]

    (489) Amended regulations for the following AQMD was submitted on November 15, 2016 by the Governor's Designee.

    (i) Incorporation by Reference. (A) Mendocino County Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Regulation I, Rule 1-130, “Definitions,” amended on September 20, 2016.

    (2) Regulation I, Rule 1-200, “Permit Requirements,” amended on September 20, 2016.

    (3) Regulation I, Rule 1-220, “New Source Review Standards (Including PSD Evaluations),” amended on September 20, 2016.

    (4) Regulation I, Rule 1-230, “Action on Applications,” amended on September 20, 2016.

    § 52.223 [Amended]
    3. Section 52.223 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (i)(2), (j)(1), (k)(1), (l)(2), (m)(1), (n)(1), and (o)(1).
    § 52.233 [Amended]
    4. Section 52.233 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d)(12). 5. Section 52.270 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 52.270 Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (b) * * *

    (3) The PSD program for Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, as incorporated by reference in § 52.220(c)(489) is approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. However, EPA is retaining authority to apply § 52.21 in certain cases. The provisions of § 52.21 except for paragraph (a)(1) are therefore incorporated and made a part of the State plan for California for the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District for:

    § 52.283 [Amended]
    6. Section 52.283 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (d)(1)(i), (e)(2)(i), (f)(2)(i), and (g)(1)(i).
    [FR Doc. 2017-13188 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 126 Monday, July 3, 2017 Proposed Rules NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 704 RIN 3133-AE75 Corporate Credit Unions AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend its regulations governing corporate credit unions (corporates) and the scope of their activities. Specifically, the proposed amendments revise provisions on retained earnings and Tier 1 capital.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods, but please send comments by one method only:

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

    NCUA Web site: http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinions Laws/proposed_regs/proposed_regs.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include “[Your name]—Comments on Proposed Rule—Corporate Credit Unions” in the email subject line.

    Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.

    Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yvonne Applonie, Director of Supervision, Office of National Examinations and Supervision, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6595; or Marvin Shaw, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6553.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The financial crisis of 2007-2009 took a heavy toll on the corporate credit union system. The crisis, largely mortgage related, greatly affected the investment portfolios of many corporates causing widespread liquidity problems, instability in the system, and failures. During this time period, NCUA took extraordinary short and mid-term measures to stabilize the corporate system. Among other things, it: (1) Made capital injections; (2) approved the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Share Guarantee Program, which guaranteed uninsured shares at participating corporates; (3) engaged the services of an independent, highly qualified third party to conduct a comprehensive analysis of expected non-recoverable credit losses for distressed securities held by corporates; (4) conserved five corporates; 1 and (5) created the NCUA Guaranteed Note Program.2

    1 The five were U.S. Central, Western Corporate, Members United Corporate, Southwest Corporate, and Constitution Corporate.

    2 As part of the corporate system resolution, NCUA created the NCUA Guaranteed Note Program to provide long-term funding for distressed investment securities (Legacy Assets) from the five failed corporate credit unions. Legacy Assets consisted of over 2,000 investment securities, secured by approximately 1.6 million residential mortgages, as well as commercial mortgages and other securitized assets.

    To provide longer term structural enhancements to the corporate system, the Board comprehensively revised part 704, the regulations governing corporates and their activities, in 2010.3 The 2010 rule's primary purpose was to establish a regulatory framework that provides a foundation for a healthy corporate system that: (1) Delivers important services to the corporates' natural person credit union members, such as payment systems and liquidity; and (2) builds and attracts sufficient capital.4 The 2010 rule also helped to prevent the recurrence of the kind of financial losses that led to the failure of the referenced five corporates and weakened the financial condition of several others.

    3 12 CFR part 704; 75 FR 64786 (Oct. 20, 2010).

    4 75 FR 64787, 64787 (Oct. 20, 2010).

    The 2010 rule curtailed several of the practices that led to the referenced corporate failures. Specifically, it established investment concentration limits, limited asset maturities, and prohibited investments in subordinated and private label mortgage-backed securities. Most relevant to this proposal, the 2010 rule also implemented a prompt corrective action (PCA) regime stipulating capital adequacy for corporates. Largely based on the Basel I requirements, the capital requirements of the 2010 rule emphasized the importance of corporates holding tangible and durable capital.

    It has been nearly seven years since the Board issued the 2010 rule. In that time, NCUA's efforts have had the intended effect of stabilizing the corporate system and improving the corporates' ability to function and provide needed services to natural person credit unions. Additionally, the overall economy has improved greatly, thereby improving the economic landscape in which corporates operate. Further, the large concentration of troubled assets within the corporate system has been reduced through portfolio repositioning or NCUA intervention. The corporate system has significantly contracted and consolidated, with assets declining from approximately $81.7 billion prior to the 2010 rule to approximately $24.9 billion today. In that same time period, the number of corporates has declined from 26 to 11. Given all of these positive developments, the Board believes conditions are such that it is now safe and appropriate to revisit the capital standards of the 2010 rule. As discussed in more detail below, the proposed amendments to the corporate rule primarily affect the calculation of capital after corporates consolidate and set a retained earnings ratio target in meeting PCA standards.

    II. Proposed Amendments Corporate Consolidations and Capital

    In 2015, the Board made further refinements to part 704. Specifically, the Board amended the definition of “Tier 1 capital” to include as a component of that term, the retained earnings acquired through a merger. Given that retained earnings acquired through a merger are currently not recorded on the continuing corporate's financial statements, the amount must be recorded outside of the financial statements. This approach does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), thus inhibiting transparency of capital adequacy. The Board believes a corporate will be more transparent presenting its capital adequacy by adopting conventions more closely aligned with its published financial statements. Accordingly, with respect to the definition of “retained earnings,” the Board proposes to incorporate “GAAP equity acquired in a merger” as a component of retained earnings. This amendment to the definition of “retained earnings” will, in turn, affect the definition of “Tier 1 capital,” which includes retained earnings as one of the components of Tier 1 capital.

    More specifically, the current definition of “retained earnings” includes undivided earnings, regular reserve, reserve for contingencies, supplemental reserves, reserve for losses, and other appropriations from undivided earnings as designated by management or NCUA. Including “GAAP equity acquired in a merger” to that list gives recognition to standard accounting conventions for purposes of consolidating records between merged entities. As a practical matter, the Board has treated equity acquired in a merger as retained earnings, but did so in the context of defining contributed capital's ability to cover losses. The Board believes that expressly including such equity acquired in a merger as retained earnings and referencing GAAP will clarify that this capital is available to cover losses, enhance transparency, and reduce ambiguity.

    Further, the Board proposes to delete the phrase “the retained earnings of any acquired credit union, or an integrated set of activities and assets, calculated at the point of acquisition, if the acquisition is a mutual combination” from the current definition of “Tier 1 capital.” This provision becomes redundant as a result of the expanded definition of retained earnings which will include GAAP equity acquired in a merger.

    Retained Earnings Ratio

    In addition to the Board's proposed amendments to the definitions of “retained earnings” and “Tier 1 capital” as discussed above, the Board also proposes to add a definition of “retained earnings ratio” to part 704.

    The 2010 rule's PCA provisions require corporates to meet a leverage ratio.5 The leverage ratio primarily consists of retained earnings and perpetual contributed capital (PCC).6 Capital included in the leverage ratio incorporated the provisions of Tier 1 capital as defined by the bank regulatory agencies, with a notable exception. The Board recognizes that while corporates had been permitted to secure contributed capital from any source, history has shown that nearly all contributed capital has been invested by federally insured natural person credit unions. As such, depletions of corporate capital can lead to corresponding investment impairments and capital erosion at the natural person credit unions. This can lead to greater exposure of loss to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. The 2010 rule encouraged corporates to build sufficient retained earnings to absorb losses without causing a corresponding loss to another party, such as a natural person credit union that purchased contributed capital from that corporate (i.e., perpetual and non-perpetual capital as defined in the rule).

    5 The leverage ratio is currently defined as Tier 1 Capital divided by moving daily average net assets. The leverage ratio and capital definitions were revised as part of the 2010 rule, which contained a series of phased in definitions over a three-year period. Beginning October 21, 2011 and before October 21, 2013, the leverage ratio was defined as the ratio of total capital to moving daily average net assets. This ratio was called the “interim” leverage ratio. After October 21, 2013, the leverage ratio was redefined as the ratio of adjusted core capital to moving daily average net assets. This was called the permanent leverage ratio. In May 6, 2015 the NCUA Board approved changes to the regulation that sought to simplify and clarify the capital definitions in the regulations now that the major phase-in dates had passed. The definitions of core capital and adjusted core capital were combined into one definition called Tier 1 capital. The leverage ratio and other related capital ratio definitions were similarly amended to reflect the change to Tier 1 Capital.

    6 Perpetual Contributed Capital means accounts or other interests of a corporate credit union that are perpetual, non-cumulative dividend accounts; are available to cover losses that exceed retained earnings, are not insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund or other share or deposit insurers; and cannot be pledged against borrowings. In the event the corporate is liquidated, any claims made by the holders of the perpetual contributed capital will be subordinate to all other claims (including National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund claims).

    The incentive to build retained earnings was created by limiting the amount of contributed capital permitted to be included in calculating the corporate's leverage ratio.7 The limitation on PCC was phased-in over a period of ten years recognizing the erosion of corporate capital during the financial crisis and reasonable expectations for future corporate profitability.8 Until October 2016, all PCC was included in the leverage ratio. Effective October 2016, part 704 requires corporates to deduct the amount of PCC exceeding retained earnings by 200 basis points. Effective October 2020, corporates must deduct the amount of PCC exceeding retained earnings.

    7 12 CFR 704.2

    8 As financial intermediaries, the net margins for corporates have been low with a historical average net return on assets ratio of approximately 23 bps.

    The 2010 revisions to part 704 have resulted in the intended effect. Specifically, all corporates have accumulated sufficient retained earnings to meet or exceed the adequate capitalization threshold under PCA through the October 2016 phase-in adjustment.

    While the result has been positive, the Board recognizes that the language in the current rule is indirect and may disadvantage corporates working with third parties. The limitation on PCC for regulatory capital purposes does not recognize the full value of PCC that stands to absorb losses and protect counterparties. Further, the construct to reduce the inclusion of PCC as capital provides for inconsistent treatment compared to capital regulations governing other types of financial institutions, such as banks, and could promote confusion. Accordingly, the Board proposes to remove the requirement effective October 2020 to limit PCC counted as Tier 1 capital to the amount of retained earnings. Further, the Board proposes to permit a corporate to include in its Tier 1 capital all PCC that is sourced from an entity not covered by federal share insurance.

    However, recognizing that retained earnings is critical to the health of the corporate system and the share insurance fund, the Board proposes to add a provision to part 704 requiring all corporates to achieve an eventual retained earnings ratio of 250 basis points. To that end, the Board proposes to add a definition of “retained earnings ratio” to mean “the corporate credit union's retained earnings divided by its moving daily average net assets.” Upon attaining this benchmark, a corporate would be permitted to include all PCC, regardless of source, in its Tier 1 capital. The PCA thresholds will remain at their current limits. Until such time as a corporate achieves a 250 basis points retained earnings ratio, it must deduct the amount of PCC exceeding retained earnings by 200 basis points as an inducement to build retained earnings.

    The Board believes this proposal will promote clarity as to the minimum amount of retained earnings to be held by a corporate to account for potential losses. In setting this minimum standard, the Board balances it with the risk mitigating provisions of current part 704 including investment concentration limits, NEV volatility limits, asset maturity limits, and investment prohibitions. As such, the Board is not contemplating amending other corporate risk taking authorities in part 704.

    Appendix B to Part 704—Expanded Authorities and Requirements

    Appendix B to part 704 enumerates the expanded authorities available to corporates and the procedures that a corporate must follow to be granted such authorities. The Part I expanded investment authority allows a corporate to take on additional risk in certain investment products. As part of this authority, a corporate's NEV ratios may decline to specified amounts when meeting certain leverage ratios.

    The Board proposes to add a “retained earnings ratio” requirement to the Part I expanded investment authorities. The Board believes that by doing so the retained earnings ratio requirement will limit the risk of the expanded investment portfolios. Specifically, the Board proposes to employ an indexed retained earnings requirement, which will correlate with the actual level of risk taking.

    III. Regulatory Procedures 1. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis of any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $100 million in assets).9 This proposed rule only affects corporates, all of which have more than $100 million in assets. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

    9 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden or increases an existing burden.10 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of a reporting or recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. The proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501).

    10 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320.

    3. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The proposed rule does 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. NCUA has, therefore, determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

    4. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 704

    Credit unions, Corporate credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on June 23, 2017.

    Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.

    For the reasons discussed above, the National Credit Union Administration Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 704 as follows:

    PART 704—CORPORATE CREDIT UNIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 704 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1781, 1789.

    2. Amend § 704.2 by: a. Revising the definition of “Retained earnings”; b. Adding a definition of “Retained Earnings Ratio”; and c. Revising the definition of “Tier 1 capital” to read as follows:
    § 704.2 Definitions

    Retained earnings means undivided earnings, regular reserve, reserve for contingencies, supplemental reserves, reserve for losses, GAAP equity acquired in a merger, and other appropriations from undivided earnings as designated by management or NCUA.

    Retained earnings ratio means the corporate credit union's retained earnings divided by its moving daily average net assets.

    Tier 1 capital means the sum of items (1) through (2) of this definition from which items (3) through (6) are deducted:

    (1) Retained earnings;

    (2) Perpetual contributed capital;

    (3) Deduct the amount of the corporate credit union's intangible assets that exceed one half percent of its moving daily average net assets (however, NCUA may direct the corporate credit union to add back some of these assets on NCUA's own initiative, or NCUA's approval of petition from the applicable state regulator or application from the corporate credit union);

    (4) Deduct investments, both equity and debt, in unconsolidated CUSOs;

    (5) Deduct an amount equal to any PCC or NCA that the corporate credit union maintains at another corporate credit union;

    (6) Deduct any amount of PCC received from federally insured credit unions that causes PCC minus retained earnings, all divided by moving daily average net assets, to exceed two percent when a corporate credit union's retained earnings ratio is less than two and a half percent.

    3. Amend by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of Part I of Appendix B to Part 704 to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 704—Expanded Authorities and Requirements

    (b)(1) * * *

    (2) 28 percent if the corporate credit union has a seven percent minimum leverage ratio and a two and a half percent retained earnings ratio, and is specifically approved by NCUA; or

    (3) 35 percent if the corporate credit union has an eight percent minimum leverage ratio and a three percent retained earnings ratio and is specifically approved by NCUA.

    [FR Doc. 2017-13642 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD 12 CFR Parts 930 and 932 FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY 12 CFR Part 1277 RIN 2590-AA70 Federal Home Loan Bank Capital Requirements AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Board; Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is proposing to adopt, with amendments, the regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) pertaining to the capital requirements for the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks). The proposed rule would carry over most of the existing regulations without material change, but would substantively revise the credit risk component of the risk-based capital requirement, as well as the limitations on extensions of unsecured credit. The principal revisions to those provisions would remove requirements that the Banks calculate credit risk capital charges and unsecured credit limits based on ratings issued by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO), and would instead require that the Banks use their own internal rating methodology. The proposed rule also would revise the percentages used in the tables to calculate the credit risk capital charges for advances and non-mortgage assets. FHFA would retain the percentages used in the existing table to calculate the capital charges for mortgage-related assets, but intends to address the appropriate methodology for determining the credit risk capital charges for residential mortgage assets as part of a subsequent rulemaking.

    DATES:

    FHFA must receive written comments on or before September 1, 2017. For additional information, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit your comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 2590-AA70, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: www.fhfa.gov/open-for-comment-or-input.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email to FHFA at [email protected] to ensure timely receipt by the agency. Please include Comments/RIN 2590-AA70 in the subject line of the message.

    Courier/Hand Delivery: The hand delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA70, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20219. Deliver the package to the Seventh Street entrance Guard Desk, First Floor, on business days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

    U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service, Federal Express, or Other Mail Service: The mailing address for comments is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA70, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20219. Please note that all mail sent to FHFA via the U.S. Mail service is routed through a national irradiation facility, a process that may delay delivery by approximately two weeks. For any time-sensitive correspondence, please plan accordingly.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Smith, Associate Director, Office of Policy Analysis and Research, [email protected], 202-649-3193; Julie Paller, Principal Financial Analyst, Division of Bank Regulation, [email protected], 202-649-3201; or Neil R. Crowley, Deputy General Counsel, [email protected], 202-649-3055 (these are not toll-free numbers), Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Hearing Impaired is 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Comments

    FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final rule. Copies of all comments will be posted without change, on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov, and will include any personal information you provide, such as your name, address, email address, and telephone number.

    II. Background A. Establishment of the Federal Housing Finance Agency

    Effective July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) 1 created FHFA as a new independent agency of the Federal Government, and transferred to FHFA the supervisory and oversight responsibilities of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) over the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (collectively, the Enterprises), the oversight responsibilities of the Finance Board over the Banks and the Office of Finance (OF) (which acts as the Banks' fiscal agent), and certain functions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.2 Under the legislation, the Enterprises, the Banks, and the OF continue to operate under regulations promulgated by OFHEO and the Finance Board, respectively, until such regulations are superseded by regulations issued by FHFA.3 While FHFA has previously adopted regulations addressing the capital structure of the Banks and the Banks' capital plans, the Finance Board regulations establishing the Banks' total, leverage, and risk-based capital requirements continue to apply to the Banks pursuant to this provision, and would be superseded by this rulemaking.4

    1 Public Law No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654.

    2See 12 U.S.C. 4511.

    3See 12 U.S.C. 4511, note.

    4See 80 FR 12755 (March 11, 2015) (FHFA rulemaking); 12 CFR part 932 (Finance Board capital requirement regulations).

    B. Federal Home Loan Bank Capital and Capital Requirements

    The eleven Banks are wholesale financial institutions organized under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act).5 The Banks are cooperatives. Only members of a Bank may purchase the capital stock of a Bank, and only members or certain eligible housing associates (such as state housing finance agencies) may obtain access to secured loans, known as advances, or other products provided by a Bank.6 Each Bank is managed by its own board of directors and serves the public interest by enhancing the availability of residential mortgage and community lending credit through its member institutions.7

    5See 12 U.S.C. 1423 and 1432(a). The eleven Banks are located in: Boston, New York, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Des Moines, Dallas, Topeka, and San Francisco.

    6See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(4), 1430(a), and 1430b.

    7See 12 U.S.C. 1427.

    In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act) 8 amended the Bank Act to replace the subscription capital structure of the Bank System. It required the Banks to replace their existing capital stock with new classes of capital stock that would have different terms from the stock then held by Bank System members. Specifically, the GLB Act authorized the Banks to issue new Class A stock, which the GLB Act defined as redeemable six months after filing of a notice by a member, and Class B stock, defined as redeemable five years after filing of a notice by a member. The GLB Act allowed Banks to issue Class A and Class B stock in any combination and to establish terms and preferences for each class or subclass of stock issued, consistent with the Bank Act and regulations adopted by the Finance Board.9 The classes of stock to be issued, as well as the terms, rights, and preferences associated with each class of Bank stock, are governed by a capital structure plan, which is established by each Bank's board of directors and approved by FHFA.

    8 Public Law No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (Nov. 12, 1999).

    9See 12 U.S.C. 1426, and 12 CFR part 1277.

    The GLB Act also amended the Bank Act to impose on the Banks new total, leverage, and risk-based capital requirements similar to those applicable to depository institutions and other housing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and directed the Finance Board to adopt regulations prescribing uniform capital standards for the Banks.10 The Finance Board put these regulations in place in 2001 when it published a final capital rule, and later adopted amendments to that rule.11 In addition to addressing minimum capital requirements, the regulations also established minimum liquidity requirements for each Bank and set limits on a Bank's unsecured credit exposure to individual counterparties and groups of affiliated counterparties.12 These Finance Board regulations remain in effect and have not been substantively amended since 2001.

    10See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a). In 2008, HERA amended the risk-based capital provisions in the Bank Act to allow FHFA greater flexibility in establishing these requirements. Pub. Law No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, 2626 (July 28, 2008) (amending 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(3)(A)).

    11See Final Rule: Capital Requirements for Federal Home Loan Banks, 66 FR 8262 (Jan. 30, 2001) (hereinafter Final Finance Board Capital Rule); and Final Rule: Amendments to Capital Requirements for Federal Home Loan Banks, 66 FR 54097 (Oct. 26, 2001). The Finance Board regulations are found at 12 CFR part 932.

    12See id. See also, Final Rule: Unsecured Credit Limits for the Federal Home Loan Banks, 66 FR 66718 (Dec. 27, 2001) (amending 12 CFR 932.9).

    The GLB Act amendments to the Bank Act also defined the types of capital that the Banks must hold—specifically permanent and total capital. Permanent capital consists of amounts paid by members for Class B stock plus the Bank's retained earnings, as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).13 Total capital is made up of permanent capital plus the amounts paid by members for Class A stock, any general allowances for losses held by a Bank under GAAP (but not allowances or reserves held against specific assets or specific classes of assets), and any other amounts from sources available to absorb losses that are determined by regulation to be appropriate to include in total capital.14 As a matter of practice, however, each Bank's total capital consists of its permanent capital plus the amounts, if any, paid by its members for Class A stock.

    13See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(5).

    14Id. Neither the Finance Board nor FHFA has approved the inclusion within total capital of any other amounts that are available to absorb losses, and no Bank has any such general allowances for losses as part of its capital.

    The Bank Act requires each Bank to hold total capital equal to at least 4 percent of its total assets. The statute separately requires each Bank to meet a leverage requirement of total capital to total assets equal to 5 percent, but provides that in determining compliance with this leverage requirement, a Bank must calculate its total capital by multiplying the amount of its permanent capital by 1.5 and adding to this product any other component of total capital.15

    15See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(2). See also 12 CFR 932.2.

    Each Bank also must meet a risk-based capital requirement by maintaining permanent capital in an amount at least equal to the sum of its credit risk, market risk, and operational risk charges, as measured under the 2001 Finance Board regulations.16 Under these rules, a Bank must calculate a credit risk capital charge for each of its assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts. The basic charge is based on the book value of an asset, or other amount calculated under the rule, multiplied by a credit risk percentage requirement (CRPR) for that particular asset or item, which is derived from one of the tables set forth in the rule. Generally, the CRPR varies based on the rating assigned to the asset by an NRSRO and the maturity of the asset.17 The market risk capital charge is calculated separately, as the maximum loss in the Bank's portfolio under various stress scenarios, estimated by an approved internal model, such that the probability of a loss greater than that estimated by the model is not more than one percent.18 The operational risk capital charge equals 30 percent of the combined credit and market risk charges for the Bank, although the rules allow a Bank to demonstrate that a lower charge should apply if FHFA approves and other conditions are met.19

    16See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(3) and 12 CFR 932.3, 932.4, 932.5, and 932.6.

    17See 12 CFR 932.4.

    18See 12 CFR 932.5.

    19See 12 CFR 932.6.

    C. The Dodd-Frank Act and Bank Capital Rules

    Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) requires federal agencies to: (i) Review regulations that require the use of an assessment of the creditworthiness of a security or money market instrument; and (ii) to the extent those regulations contain any references to, or requirements based on, NRSRO credit ratings, remove such references or requirements.20 In place of such NRSRO rating-based requirements, agencies are instructed to substitute appropriate standards for determining creditworthiness. The Dodd-Frank Act further provides that, to the extent feasible, an agency should adopt a uniform standard of creditworthiness for use in its regulations, taking into account the entities regulated by it and the purposes for which such regulated entities would rely on the creditworthiness standard.

    20See § 939A, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1887 (July 21, 2010).

    Several provisions of the Finance Board capital regulations include requirements that are based on NRSRO credit ratings, and thus must be revised to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act provisions related to use of NRSRO ratings.21 Specifically, as already noted, the credit risk capital charges for certain Bank assets are calculated in large part based on the credit ratings assigned by NRSROs to a particular counterparty or specific financial instrument. In addition, the rule related to the operational risk capital charge allows a Bank to calculate an alternative capital charge if the Bank obtains insurance to cover operational risk from an insurer with an NRSRO credit rating of no lower than the second highest investment grade rating. Finally, the capital rules addressed by this rulemaking also establish unsecured credit limits for the Banks based on NRSRO credit ratings. FHFA is proposing to amend each of these provisions to bring them into compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act requirements.

    21See Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Alternatives to Use of Credit Ratings in Regulations Governing the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, 76 FR 5292, 5294 (Jan. 31, 2011).

    III. The Proposed Rule

    FHFA is proposing to amend part 1277 of its regulations by adopting, with some revisions, the capital requirement regulations of the Finance Board, which are located at 12 CFR part 932.22 Most of the provisions of the Finance Board regulations would be adopted without change or with only minor conforming changes. The proposed rule, however, would rescind § 932.1, which required the Banks to obtain the approval of the Finance Board for their market risk models prior to implementing their capital plans, which all Banks have done. The proposed rule also would rescind § 932.8, regarding minimum liquidity requirements for the Banks, because FHFA intends to address liquidity requirements as part of a separate rulemaking.23 The proposal would adopt the substance of § 932.2 and § 932.3, regarding the total capital requirements and risk-based capital requirements, respectively, without change. FHFA is proposing to make minor revisions to the Finance Board regulations pertaining to market risk, operational risk, and reporting requirements, currently located at §§ 932.5, 932.6, and 932.7, respectively. The proposed rule would make significant revisions to two provisions of the Finance Board regulations: § 932.4, regarding credit risk capital requirements; and § 932.9, regarding limits on unsecured credit exposures, principally by removing requirements that are based on NRSRO credit ratings. In both cases, the proposed rule would replace the current approach with one under which the Banks would develop their own internal credit rating methodology to be used in place of the NRSRO credit ratings. With respect to the credit risk capital charges, the proposed rule also would revise the CRPRs used in the current regulation's tables to calculate the credit risk capital charges for advances and for non-mortgage assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts. With respect to the unsecured credit limits, the proposed rule would incorporate into the rule text the substance of certain regulatory interpretations that have addressed the application of the unsecured credit limits in particular situations, and would make other changes to account for developments in the marketplace, such as the Dodd-Frank Act's mandate for clearing certain derivatives transactions. The proposed rule would not change the basic percentage limits used to calculate the amount of unsecured credit that a Bank can extend to a single counterparty or group of affiliated counterparties.

    22 FHFA previously transferred the Finance Board requirements related to the Banks' capital stock and capital structure plans and readopted these provisions, subject to certain amendments, as 12 CFR part 1277, subparts C and D. See Final Rule: Federal Home Loan Bank Capital Stock and Capital Plans, 80 FR 12753 (Mar. 11, 2015). At that time, FHFA also transferred a number of definitions relevant to the capital stock and capital plan requirements from 12 CFR 930.1 to subpart A of part 1277.

    23 The current regulation is not determinative of the amount of the Banks' liquidity portfolios. Instead, Banks maintain liquid assets in accordance with guidelines issued in March 2009 that provide for more liquidity than the regulatory requirements. See Letter from Stephen M. Cross, Deputy Director, Division of FHLBank Regulation, to the FHLBank Presidents, March 6, 2009. Under those guidelines, the Banks maintain positive cash balances that would be sufficient to support their operations if they were unable to issue consolidated obligations for a 5-day period during which they renewed all maturing advances, and for a 15-day period during which all maturing advances were repaid. Until FHFA adopts a new liquidity regulation, the March 2009 guidelines will remain applicable.

    A discussion of the specific changes that FHFA proposes to make to the Banks' current capital regulations as part of this rulemaking follows.

    Proposed § 1277.1—Definitions

    Most of the definitions in proposed § 1277.1 would be carried over without substantive change from current 12 CFR 930.1. FHFA, however, is proposing to define seven new terms, which are: “collateralized mortgage obligation;” “derivatives clearing organization;” “eligible master netting agreement;” “non-mortgage asset;” “non-rated asset;” “residential mortgage;” and “residential mortgage security.”

    Three of the new terms FHFA proposes to define pertain to the mortgage-related assets that a Bank may hold, which are: “collateralized mortgage obligation,” “residential mortgage,” and “residential mortgage security.” These definitions are straightforward and are intended to be mutually exclusive. They will be used to assign the particular asset to the appropriate category of Table 1.4 that would be used to determine the capital charge for that asset. The term “residential mortgage” is intended to include those mortgage loans that the Banks may purchase as acquired member assets (AMA), and would include both whole loans and participation interests in such loans. These loans must be secured by a residential structure that contains one-to- four dwelling units. The proposed definition would encompass loans on individual condominium or cooperative units, as well as on manufactured housing, whether or not the manufactured housing is considered real property under state law. The definition would not include a loan secured by a multifamily property because the credit risk for such properties differs from loans secured by one-to-four family residences.

    The term “residential mortgage security” includes any mortgage-backed security that represents an undivided interest in a pool of “residential mortgages,” i.e., mortgage pass-through securities. Both residential mortgages and residential mortgage securities would be grouped together in Table 1.4 of the proposed rule and would have the same credit risk capital charges, assuming the Bank has given them the same internal credit rating. The term “collateralized mortgage obligation” is intended to include any other type of mortgage-related security that is not structured as a pass-through security, i.e., any such security that has two or more tranches or classes. The capital charges for collateralized mortgage obligations would be derived from a different portion of Table 1.4, and most charges would be higher than those for mortgage pass-through securities. None of these proposed definitions would encompass a commercial mortgage-backed security (CMBS), including one collateralized by mortgage loans on multi-family properties, because the risk characteristics for such securities differ from those on securities representing an interest in, or otherwise backed by, mortgage loans on one-to-four family residential properties. Such CMBS or multi-family property securities would be deemed to be “non-mortgage assets” and the capital charge for them would be determined by using proposed Table 1.2, which applies to internally rated non-mortgage assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts.

    FHFA proposes to define “derivatives clearing organization” as an organization that clears derivatives contracts and is registered with either the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or is exempted by one of those two Commissions from such registration. The new definition is needed because, as is discussed below, the proposed credit risk capital provision and the proposed unsecured credit provision impose different requirements on derivatives contracts cleared by a derivatives clearing organization than they impose on those not so cleared.

    FHFA proposes to define “non-rated asset” to include those assets that are currently addressed by Table 1.4 of Finance Board regulation 12 CFR 932.4, which are cash, premises, and plant and equipment, as well as certain investments described in the core mission activities regulation. Under the proposed rule the credit risk capital charges for “non-rated assets” would derive from proposed Table 1.3, which would be identical to Table 1.4 of the current regulation, both in terms of the assets covered by the table and the capital charges assigned to each category of assets within the table.

    The proposed rule would define the term “non-mortgage asset” to include any assets held by a Bank other than advances covered by Table 1.1, all types of mortgage-related assets covered by Table 1.4, non-rated assets covered by Table 1.3, or derivatives contracts. As is discussed in much greater detail below, capital charges for “non-mortgage assets” would be calculated based on their stated maturity and a Bank's internal credit rating for the assets, using new proposed Table 1.2. The charges for all types of residential mortgage assets also would be calculated based on the Bank's internal rating of those assets, rather than a rating from an NRSRO, but the credit risk percentage requirements will remain the same as in the current regulation.

    The proposed rule also would add a definition for “eligible master netting agreement.” FHFA would define the term by reference to the definition for the term recently adopted in the FHFA rule governing margin and capital requirements for covered swap entities.24 The term “eligible master netting agreement” would replace the references and definition of “qualifying bilateral netting contract” now found in the credit risk capital provision and would be relevant to how a Bank calculates its credit exposures under multiple derivatives contracts with a single party. As discussed more fully later, the current credit exposures arising from derivatives contracts with a single counterparty and subject to an eligible master netting agreement would be calculated on a net basis, in accordance with proposed § 1277.4(i)(1)(ii). Lastly, the proposed rule would revise the existing Finance Board definition of “operations risk” by changing it to “operational risk” and incorporating the definition of operational risk currently used in FHFA Advisory Bulletin AB-2014-02 (February 18, 2014).

    24See, Final Rule: Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 80 FR 74840 (Nov. 30, 2015) (hereinafter, Final Uncleared Swaps Rule). The specific definition is found at 12 CFR 1221.2. FHFA does not propose to carry over the current definition for “walkaway clause” in current 12 CFR 930.1 as the proposed definition of “eligible master netting agreement” already would sufficiently describe a walkaway clause.

    Proposed § 1277.2 and § 1277.3—Total Capital and Risk-Based Capital Requirements

    As noted above, FHFA proposes to re-adopt current § 932.2 and § 932.3 of the Finance Board regulations as § 1277.2 and § 1277.3 without change. Proposed § 1277.2 is identical to the existing regulation and would set forth the minimum total capital and leverage ratios that each Bank must maintain under section 6(a)(2) of the Bank Act.25 Proposed § 1277.3 also is identical to the existing regulation, apart from cross-references to other regulations, and would set forth a Bank's risk-based capital requirement and require a Bank to hold at all times an amount of permanent capital equal to at least the sum of its credit risk, market risk and operational risk capital requirements.26 In turn, proposed §§ 1277.4, 1277.5, and 1277.6 would establish, respectively, the requirements for calculating a Bank's credit risk, market risk, and operational risk capital charges, as described below.

    25 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(2).

    26 FHFA believes that this approach remains consistent with the amendments made by HERA to the risk-based capital requirements in the Bank Act. As amended, the Bank Act provides the Director with broad authority to establish by regulation risk-based capital standards for the Banks that ensure the Banks operate in a safe and sound manner with sufficient permanent capital and reserves to support the risks arising from their operations. See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(3)(A).

    Proposed § 1277.4—Credit Risk Capital Requirements

    FHFA is proposing changes to the current credit risk capital provision, now set forth at 12 CFR 932.4 of the Finance Board regulations. The principal revisions include changing how a Bank determines the CRPRs used to calculate capital charges for its internally rated non-mortgage assets, derivatives contracts, and off-balance sheet items (under proposed Table 1.2), and for its residential mortgage assets (under proposed Table 1.4). In both cases, a Bank would no longer base the charge on an NRSRO credit rating, but on a credit rating that the Bank calculates internally. The proposal also would update the CRPRs used to calculate the applicable capital charges for advances and non-mortgage assets, and would change the frequency of a Bank's calculation of its credit risk capital charges from monthly to quarterly.27 Finally, as discussed in more detail below, FHFA is also proposing a number of other changes to the current regulation.

    27 FHFA also is proposing a similar conforming change for the frequency of the calculation of the market risk capital charge. As a result, under the proposed rule, Banks would re-calculate their risk-based capital requirement quarterly, rather than monthly as under the current regulation.

    General. Similar to the current regulation, proposed § 1277.4(a) would provide that a Bank's credit risk capital requirement equal the sum of the individual credit risk capital charges for its advances, residential mortgage assets, non-mortgage assets, off-balance sheet items, derivatives contracts, and non-rated assets. Proposed § 1277.4(b) through (e) would set forth the general approach for calculating the credit risk capital charges, respectively, for: Residential mortgage assets; advances, non-mortgage assets, and non-rated assets; off-balance sheet items; and derivatives contracts. The calculation of capital charges for residential mortgage assets is discussed below in the section entitled Credit Risk Charge for Residential Mortgage Assets.

    Valuation of Assets. For all assets, § 1277.4(c) of the proposed rule generally would require that a Bank determine the capital charge by multiplying the amortized cost of the asset by the CRPR assigned to the asset under the appropriate table. The proposed rule includes an exception to this general approach, which would apply for any asset carried at fair value for which the Bank recognizes the change in that asset's fair value in income. For these assets, the capital charge would equal the fair value of the asset multiplied by the applicable CRPR. The proposed wording represents a change from the current regulation, which bases the capital charge for on-balance sheet assets on the asset's book value. FHFA is proposing this change to provide greater clarity and alignment with the intent of the rule, as amortized cost and fair value are the current financial instrument recognition and measurement attributes used in relevant accounting guidance.

    Charge for Off-Balance Sheet Items. Section 1277.4(d) of the proposed rule would carry over the language from the existing Finance Board regulations regarding the capital charges for off-balance sheet items without change. Thus, the capital charge for such items would equal the credit equivalent amount of the item multiplied by the CRPR assigned to the asset by Table 1.2 of proposed § 1277.4(f)(1). A Bank would calculate the credit equivalent amount for any off-balance sheet item pursuant to proposed § 1277.4(h), which would allow a Bank to calculate the credit equivalent amount by using either an FHFA-approved model or the proposed conversion factors set forth in Table 2. The proposed conversion factors are the same as those in the current regulation. Proposed § 1277.4(d) would retain the existing exception provided by the current regulation for standby letters of credit, under which the CRPR would be the same as that established under Table 1.1 for an advance with the same remaining maturity as the standby letter of credit. A Bank would still need to calculate the credit equivalent amount for the letter of credit pursuant to proposed § 1277.4(h).28

    28 Under proposed Table 2, the credit equivalent amount of any letter of credit would equal the face amount of the letter of credit multiplied by 0.5 (i.e., a credit conversion factor of 50 percent).

    Proposed § 1277.4(h), which addresses the calculation of credit equivalent amounts and is substantively the same as § 932.4(f) of the Finance Board regulation, would carry over the treatment for certain off-balance sheet commitments that otherwise would be subject to a credit conversion factor of 20 percent or 50 percent. If such commitments are unconditionally cancelable or effectively provide for cancellation upon deterioration in the borrowers' creditworthiness, then the credit conversion factor would be zero, and no credit risk capital charge would apply to those items.

    Derivatives Contracts. Proposed § 1277.4(e) would establish the general requirements for calculating credit risk capital charges for derivatives contracts. The proposed rule would make a number of changes to the current regulation's treatment of derivatives. These changes reflect developments in derivatives regulations brought about by the Dodd-Frank Act, including the clearing requirement for many standardized over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts and the adoption by FHFA, jointly with other federal regulators, of the Final Rule on Margin and Capital Requirements for covered Swap Entities, which established margin and capital requirements for uncleared swap contracts. The proposed rule also would eliminate the provision from the current regulation that provides special treatment for derivatives with members so that derivatives contracts with members would receive the same treatment as derivatives contracts with non-members. Section 1277.4(e)(4)(i) of the proposed rule, however, would retain the exception in the current regulation that assigns a capital charge of zero to any foreign exchange rate contract (other than gold contracts) that has a maturity of 14 days or less.

    First, the proposed rule would add a credit risk capital charge for all cleared derivatives contracts, including exchange-traded futures contracts. Under the current regulation, cleared derivatives contracts have a charge of zero. However, when the Finance Board adopted the current regulation, the only cleared derivatives contracts used by the Banks were exchange-traded futures contracts, and the Banks did not commonly use futures. Given the Dodd-Frank Act clearing requirements, Banks will now clear a significant percentage of their OTC derivatives contracts.29 Thus, FHFA finds it reasonable to apply a capital charge to such contracts. The credit risk capital charge for cleared derivatives under the proposed rule also would take account of the fact that the amount of collateral a Bank must post to a derivatives clearing organization will exceed, at most times, the Bank's current obligation to the clearing organization, creating an exposure to potential loss of such excess collateral should the clearing organization fail. Capital rules adopted by federal banking regulators also instituted charges for collateral posted to the derivative counterparties, including derivative clearing organizations.

    29 Because a futures contract is a cleared derivatives contract, the change in the proposed rule with regard to capital charges for cleared derivatives contracts would also apply to futures contracts.

    Specifically, § 1277.4(e)(4)(ii) of the proposed rule would impose a capital charge of 0.16 percent times the sum of a Bank's marked-to-market exposure on the cleared derivatives contract,30 plus its potential future exposure on the contract, plus the amount of any collateral posted by the Bank and held by the clearing organization that exceeds the amount of the Bank's current obligation to the clearing organization under the contract. The charge in the proposed rule for cleared derivatives contracts is consistent with the minimum total capital charge that would be applicable to cleared derivatives contracts under the standardized approach in the capital rules adopted by federal banking regulators.31

    30 Given that most clearing organizations effectively settle a cleared derivatives contract at the end of the day, the current exposure would often be zero or a small amount depending on the timing of the daily settlement.

    31 FHFA, however, has not adjusted the charge to account for any additional capital amounts needed to comply with the capital conservation buffer under the federal banking regulators' rules.

    For uncleared derivatives contracts, the proposed rule would carry over much of the approach in the current regulation, in that a Bank's charge for a derivatives contract would equal the sum of the Bank's current credit exposure and potential future credit exposure under the derivatives contract, multiplied by the applicable CRPR assigned to the derivatives counterparty under Table 1.2 of proposed § 1277.4(f). As under the current regulation, the proposed rule would deem that for purposes of calculating the charge on the current credit exposure the CRPR should be that associated with an asset with a maturity of one year or less and the Bank's internal rating for the derivatives counterparty. The calculation of the charge for the potential future exposure would be based on the CRPR associated with the maturity category equal to the remaining maturity of the derivatives contract.

    The proposed rule, however, also would add to the above amounts an additional credit risk charge for the amount of collateral posted to a counterparty that exceeds the Bank's current, marked-to-market obligation to that counterparty under the derivatives contract.32 The Bank would calculate the specific charge for the posted excess collateral based on a CRPR related to the Bank's internal rating for the custodian or other party holding such collateral and an applicable maturity deemed to be one year or less. The added charge would account for the possibility that the party holding the collateral may fail, and the Bank may not be able to recover its excess collateral. Capital rules issued by banking regulators also apply a capital charge for collateral posted to a third-party for uncleared derivatives contracts.

    32 Generally, this amount should equal the initial margin that a Bank would post under its derivatives contracts with a particular counterparty. Any amounts paid by a Bank to a derivatives clearing organization with respect to an end-of-day-settlement would not be considered collateral held by the clearing organization for purposes of applying any capital charge. Thus, the capital charge would be the sum of the current credit exposure, the potential future credit exposure, and the exposure related to the amount of collateral that exceeds the Bank's current exposure.

    The proposed rule would allow the Bank to reduce its credit risk capital charge for derivatives contracts based on collateral posted by the counterparty, but only if the Bank's treatment of collateral posted under the derivatives contract complies with proposed § 1277.4(e)(3). That provision would first require the Bank to hold such collateral itself or in a segregated account consistent with requirements in the uncleared swaps margin and capital rule.33 The proposed rule also requires a Bank to apply the minimum discounts set forth in the uncleared swaps margin and capital rule to any collateral that is eligible for posting under that rule.34 The proposed rule, however, would not limit the collateral that a Bank may accept to that meeting the eligibility requirements of the uncleared swaps or margin rule, given that not all Bank derivative counterparties would be subject to these requirements.35 This is a change from the current regulation, which allows Banks to take account of collateral held against derivatives exposures if a member or affiliate of the member holds the collateral. The current regulation also does not impose specific minimum discounts on any type of collateral but allows a Bank to determine a suitable discount. The proposed rule would carry over requirements from the current regulation that any collateral be legally available to the Bank to absorb losses and be of readily determinable value at which it can be liquidated.

    33See 12 CFR 1221.7(c). The Bank, however, would have to substitute the credit risk capital charge associated with the collateral for that of the derivatives contract. The proposed rule would also allow a Bank to base the calculation of the capital charge on the CRPR applicable to a third-party guarantor that unconditionally guarantees a Bank's counterparty's obligations under a derivatives contract, rather than on the requirement applicable to the counterparty.

    34See, 12 CFR part 1221, Appendix B.

    35 Thus, under the proposed rule, the Bank would need to apply at least the minimum discount listed in Appendix B of the margin and capital rule for uncleared swaps to any collateral listed in that Appendix but would apply a suitable discount determined by the Bank based on appropriate assumptions about price risk and liquidation costs to collateral not listed in Appendix B.

    The proposed rule would assure that minimum standards apply before a Bank can reduce its derivatives credit risk capital charge based on the protection offered by collateral. The changes in the proposed rule would impose slightly higher collateral standards than under the current regulation, but would be consistent with the move toward stricter requirements for derivatives that has followed the recent financial crisis.36

    36 For any derivatives transactions with swap dealers or major swap participants, the Bank would already have to meet these higher collateral standards under applicable uncleared swaps margin and capital rules, and thus, the proposed change should not affect transactions with these types of counterparties.

    Proposed § 1277.4(i) would specify the method for calculating the current and potential future credit exposures under a derivatives contract. The proposed rule would require a Bank to calculate the current credit exposure in the same way as under the current regulation. Specifically, the current credit exposure would equal the marked-to-market value if that value is positive and would be zero if that value were zero or negative. The proposed rule would allow a Bank to calculate the current credit exposure for all derivatives contracts subject to an “eligible master netting agreement” on a net basis. As discussed previously, FHFA proposes to align the definition of “eligible master netting agreement” with that in the recently-adopted margin and capital rule for uncleared swaps.

    This section of the proposed rule would provide a Bank the option of calculating the potential future credit exposure by using an initial margin model approved for use by the Bank by FHFA under § 1221.8 of the margin and capital rules for uncleared swaps, or that has been approved by another regulator for use by the Bank's counterparty under standards similar to those in § 1221.8, or by using the standard calculation set forth in Appendix A of the part 1221 rules.37 Thus, a Bank can rely on the initial margin calculation done by a swap dealer or other counterparty that uses a model approved by the CFTC, other federal banking regulator, or a foreign regulator whose model rules have been found to be comparable to the United States rules.38 If neither the Bank nor the Bank's counterparty uses an approved model to calculate initial margin amounts, or if the Bank otherwise chooses, the proposed rule would allow the Bank to calculate the potential future exposure using the method set forth in Appendix A to the margin and capital rules for uncleared swaps. The conversion factors and the calculation of relevant potential future credit exposures for derivatives contracts, including the net potential future credit exposure for derivatives subject to an “eligible master netting agreement,” set forth under Appendix A to the margin and capital rules for uncleared swaps, are very similar to the requirements in the current Bank capital regulations for calculating potential future credit exposures on derivatives contracts.39

    37See 12 CFR 1221.8 and 12 CFR part 1221, Appendix A. As no Bank is currently a swap dealer or major swap participant that otherwise needs to develop an initial margin model, FHFA expects that the Banks would generally rely on the calculations done by a counterparty using its approved model or using Appendix A to the part 1221 rules.

    38See 12 CFR 1221.9.

    39See Final Rule on Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 80 FR 74881-882.

    Determination of credit risk percentage requirements. Proposed § 1221.4(f) sets forth the method and criteria by which a Bank would determine the CRPR that it would use to calculate the credit risk capital charges for all of its assets, derivatives contracts, and off-balance sheet items. The applicable CRPRs would be set forth in four separate tables. Table 1.1 would apply for advances. Table 1.2 would apply for internally rated non-mortgage assets, derivatives contracts, and off-balance sheet items. Proposed Table 1.3 would apply for non-rated assets, which are cash, premises, plant and equipment, and certain specific investments. Proposed Table 1.4 would apply for residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations. Each table is described below.

    CRPRs for Advances: Proposed Table 1.1. The proposed rule would carry over the existing Table 1.1, which sets forth the CRPRs for advances. The proposed rule would maintain the same four maturity categories for advances as in the current regulation, but would slightly increase the CRPRs for each maturity category. A comparison of the proposed and current CRPRs for advances follows:

    Maturity of
  • advances
  • Percentage applicable to advances
  • (proposed)
  • Percentage applicable to advances
  • (current)
  • Remaining maturity ≤4 years 0.09 0.07 Remaining maturity >4 years to 7 years 0.23 0.20 Remaining maturity >7 years to 10 years 0.35 0.30 Remaining maturity >10 years 0.51 0.35

    The fact that a Bank has never experienced a loss on an advance to a member institution creates challenges in identifying proper CRPRs for advances. When the Finance Board first developed the risk-based capital rule, it determined that appropriate requirements for advances should be greater than zero but less than the requirements for assets of the highest investment grade. Consequently, the Finance Board set the CRPRs for advances within those bounds by using the estimated default rate of assets of the highest investment grade and then applying a loss-given-default rate (LGD) of 10 percent, a much lower rate than the 100 percent LGD rate applied to other assets. The Finance Board justified the low LGD for advances by noting the over-collateralization provided for advances and other protections afforded advances under the Bank Act and Finance Board rules. The Finance Board also adjusted downward the CRPRs for advances for the two longest maturity categories in Table 1.1 to ensure those advances requirements would not exceed the CRPRs for mortgage assets of a similar maturity (as listed in current Table 1.2). It adjusted upward the CRPRs for the shortest maturity category because as calculated, the requirement for advances with a maturity of four years or less would have been zero.40

    40See Final Finance Board Bank Capital Rule, 66 FR at 8284-85.

    FHFA based the proposed new CRPRs for advances on the same concepts used by the Finance Board, but without any adjustments to the resulting percentage requirements. As discussed below, the proposed rule uses the same default rates for setting the CRPRs for advances as the revised default rate used to calculate the CRPRs for non-mortgage assets of the highest investment category. The proposed rule would apply an LGD of 10 percent, the same rate used under the current regulation, to calculate the CRPRs for advances. Unlike the current regulation, however, the proposed rule would not adjust the calculated CRPR for the longer maturity categories, and it would use the calculated requirement for the shortest maturity category.41

    41 The proposed CRPR for the shortest maturity category is not zero as calculated because it is based on default data that was updated from what the Finance Board used for the current regulation.

    Under the proposal, the total capital charges for advances would rise slightly compared to the current regulation. For example, as of year-end 2016, the proposed CRPRs would result in an increased credit risk charge for advances, although the dollar amount of the change would not be significant given the Banks' overall level of capitalization. Specifically, the aggregate credit risk capital charges for System-wide advances would increase from approximately 0.071 percent of the Banks' total assets to approximately 0.087 percent of total assets—an increase in dollar terms from $749 million to approximately $920 million. To put this increase in perspective, System-wide permanent capital available to meet the risk-based capital requirements exceeded $54 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016. Further, given that advances represented over 66 percent of the Bank System's total assets as of year-end 2016, the absolute amount of credit risk capital charge required for advances under the proposed rule would remain modest and in keeping with the very low risk posed by advances.

    CRPRs for Internally Rated Assets: Proposed Table 1.2. Proposed Table 1.2 would replace Table 1.3 from the current regulation, and would set forth the CRPRs to be used to calculate the capital charges for internally rated non-mortgage assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts.42 The current regulation assigns CRPRs for these assets, items, and contracts by use of a look-up table that delineates the CRPRs by NRSRO rating and maturity range. The proposed rule would retain the simplicity of this approach, but would replace the NRSRO rating categories with FHFA Credit Ratings categories. Specifically, proposed Table 1.2 would establish the CRPRs by using seven separate “FHFA Credit Rating” categories, each of which would be subdivided into five maturity categories. The maturity categories in proposed Table 1.2 would remain the same as those in current Table 1.3. The FHFA Credit Ratings categories are intended to achieve the same purpose served by the NRSRO credit ratings in the current regulation, which is to create a hierarchy of credit risk exposure categories, to which a Bank would assign each of the assets, items, and contracts covered by proposed Table 1.2. The FHFA Credit Ratings categories, like the NRSRO ratings categories that they replace, would base the relative creditworthiness of each category on historical loss experience. Thus, current Table 1.3 and proposed Table 1.2 both contain CRPRs structured to correspond to the historical loss experience of financial instruments, categorized by NRSRO ratings. Accordingly, the historical loss experience for the “highest investment grade” category in current Table 1.3 would correspond to the historical loss experience for the FHFA 1 Credit Rating category in proposed Table 1.2, and so on. To provide some guidance to the Banks about the breadth of these categories, the rule would make clear that each of the FHFA 1 through 4 categories would be generally comparable to the credit risk associated with items that could qualify as “investment quality,” as that term is defined in FHFA's investment regulation.43 For example, a rating of FHFA 1 would suggest the highest credit quality and the lowest level of credit risk; FHFA 2 would suggest high quality and a very low level of credit risk; and FHFA 3 would suggest an upper-medium level of credit quality and low credit risk. FHFA 4 would suggest medium quality and moderate credit risk. Categories FHFA 5 through 7 would include assets and items that have risk characteristics that are comparable to instruments that could not qualify as “investment quality” under the FHFA investment regulation.

    42See 12 CFR 932.4.

    43 12 CFR part 1267.1. Generally speaking, the term “investment quality” includes those instruments for which a Bank has determined that full and timely payment of principal and interest is expected, and that there is minimal risk that the timely payment of principal or interest will not occur because of adverse changes in economic and financial conditions during the life of the instrument.

    The proposed rule, however, differs from the current regulation by requiring the Bank to determine the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category for each instrument covered by proposed Table 1.2. The Bank would do so by conducting its own internal calculation of a credit rating for that instrument, rather than assigning it a CRPR based on an NRSRO rating. Thus, each Bank also would need to establish a mapping of its internal credit ratings to the various FHFA Credit Rating categories in proposed Table 1.2. Given the similarity in structure and basis between proposed Table 1.2 and current Table 1.3, and the historical data connection of both tables to historical loss rates, as experienced by financial instruments categorized by the NRSRO ratings, the Banks should be able to map their internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories in proposed Table 1.2 in a straightforward manner. Because the proposed rule would rely on a Bank's internal credit ratings and its mapping of those ratings to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category, it is possible that the CRPR for a particular instrument or counterparty determined under the proposed rule would differ from the CRPR that is assigned under the current regulations.

    As discussed above, the proposed rule would require the Banks to develop a method for assigning a rating to a counterparty or instrument and then map that rating to an FHFA Credit Rating category. The proposed rule would not require a Bank to obtain FHFA approval of either its method of calculating the internal credit rating or of its mapping of such ratings to the FHFA Credit Ratings categories. Instead, the proposed rule would specify that a Bank's rating method must involve an evaluation of counterparty or asset risk factors, which may include measures of the counterparty's scale, earnings, liquidity, asset quality, and capital adequacy, and could incorporate, but not rely solely upon, credit ratings available from an NRSRO or other sources.

    FHFA intends to rely on the examination process to review the Banks' internal rating methodologies and mapping processes. FHFA finds that approach appropriate because the Banks have been using internal rating methodologies for some time, and any adjustments to those methodologies that FHFA may direct a Bank to undertake in the future based on its supervisory review would not likely have a material effect on a Bank's overall credit risk capital requirement. That said, the proposed rule also includes a provision that would allow FHFA, on a case-by-case basis, to direct a Bank to change the calculated credit risk capital charge for any non-mortgage asset, off-balance sheet item, or derivatives contract, as necessary to remedy for any deficiency that FHFA identifies with respect to a Bank's internal credit rating methodology for such instruments.

    Calculation of Proposed Table 1.2 CRPRs. To generate the CRPRs in proposed Table 1.2, FHFA updated both the data and the methodology that the Finance Board had used to develop the CRPRs in current Table 1.3. As a result, the requirements in proposed Table 1.2 differ from, and in most cases are higher than, those in current Table 1.3. FHFA derived the CRPRs in proposed Table 1.2 using a modified version of the Basel internal ratings-based (IRB) credit risk model.44

    44 The FDIC used this model for calculating risk weights in its advanced IRB approach for addressing Risk-Weighted Assets for General Credit Risk. See 12 CFR part 324, subpart E.

    Both the previous Finance Board approach underlying current Table 1.3 and the current Basel credit risk model use historical default data to determine a distribution of potential default rates, and then identify a stress level of default consistent with a selected confidence level of the default rate distribution. The prior Finance Board approach differs from the Basel credit risk model in the methods used to identify both the mean and variance of the default rate distribution. The prior Finance Board approach relied on a number of key assumptions arrived at judgmentally, whereas the later-developed Basel credit risk model relies on a sound and internally consistent theoretical construct. Thus, the Basel credit risk model represents a more sound and consistent approach than the Finance Board approach.

    The application of the Basel credit risk model has two key data inputs—probability of default (PD) and LGD, grouped by segments that have homogeneous risk characteristics. To ensure consistent determinations of PDs and LGDs for the CRPR calculation, FHFA selected the PDs and LGDs from historical cumulative corporate default data. FHFA selected PDs from a sample period of 1970-2005 and grouped them by asset credit quality and maturity categories.45 These data represent the closest data in terms of risk characteristics to the variety of exposures held by the Banks that would be subject to proposed Table 1.2.

    45 To generate current Table 1.3, the Finance Board used similar data covering 1970-2000.

    The corporate default data that FHFA used to set PDs came from Moody's Investor Service. The Moody's data are very similar to historically comparable data provided by other rating agencies. More recent default rate data were available, but any data set that included the period post 2006 would reflect the abnormally high default rates that occurred during the recent financial crisis, and represent an exceptionally stressful period. Including the more recent data as an input to the Basel credit risk model would result in overstating required capital.46 The Basel model requires use of “average” PDs that reflect expected default rates under normal business conditions and mathematically converts the average PDs to the equivalent of stressed PDs for a given confidence level (selected at 99.9 percent) as applied to an assumed normal distribution of default rates.

    46See An Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions, July 2005, Bank for International Settlements, page 5. Dr. Donald R. van Deventer (Chairman and CEO of Kamakura Corporation, a financial risk management firm) points to rapidly rising default rates following the peak of the 2007-2010 financial crises and warns that these high recent rates will not meet the standards required for application of the credit model under the new Basel Capital Accords in his March 15, 2009 blog, “The Ratings Chernobyl.” Moreover, even if FHFA had included some additional post-crisis years in the PD data set, the resulting refinements to the capital CRPRs would have been immaterial.

    The Basel credit risk model requires already stressed LGDs as inputs. FHFA used the same LGD for all PD categories, and arrived at a stressed LGD by examining Moody's recovery rate (one minus LGD) data from 1982 through 2011. The recovery rates were measured based on 30-day post-default trading prices.47 The data indicated the highest actual annual LGD was nearly 80 percent, but annual LGD rates reached this level just twice in 30 years. A more commonly observed stress level of LGD is about 65 percent, which occurred nearly nine times during that period. Hence, FHFA selected an LGD of 65 percent as an input to the Basel credit risk model.

    47 This represents a commonly used market-based measure of recovery and was the only measure readily available in literature.

    The Basel II IRB application of the Basel credit risk model uses a confidence level or severity of the imposed stress of 99.9 percent.48 FHFA also concluded that 99.9 percent is an appropriate confidence level, after comparing the Basel model calculated default rates, which are based on stressed PD rates, to actual default history. FHFA found that across all ratings, the calculated default rates at the 99.9 percent confidence level were equal to or greater than annual issuer-weighted (and withdrawal adjusted) 49 corporate default rates observed for all years since the Great Depression, with one exception.50 Thus, FHFA proposes to adopt the 99.9 percent confidence level in implementing the credit risk model. However, FHFA proposes to use the version of the Basel model that accounts for both expected and unexpected loss, rather than the version that accounts only for unexpected loss. FHFA believes this choice is conservative, but may be of little consequence, as typically expected losses for Bank held instruments that are subject to Table 1.2 are minimal.

    48 The model adopted by the FDIC also uses a 99.9 percent confidence level.

    49 Issuer-weighted refers to default rates based on the proportion of issuers who defaulted, not the proportion of dollars issued that default. Withdrawal adjusted corrects the bias in the default rate that would otherwise result from the fact that some issuers are likely to disappear from the market and effectively default through means other than bankruptcy, e.g., being merged or acquired.

    50 The exception was for actual default rates observed in 1989 for double-A corporate bond issuers. The actual default rate was 0.627 and the calculated default rate was 0.570.

    Updating the methodology behind proposed Table 1.2 would result in proposed CRPRs generally higher than current charges. Specifically, based on actual System-wide data for year-end 2016, the proposed new methodology would raise required credit risk capital, when compared to that calculated under the current regulation for non-advance, non-mortgage assets, from about 0.095 percent of assets to about 0.139 percent of assets, or by 47 percent.51 The result reflects more the shortcomings with the prior methodology than any heightened concern about the credit quality of the assets or items subject to new Table 1.2. Overall, the increase under the proposed rule for the Bank System in total required risk-based capital related to credit risk charges for rated non-mortgage, non-advance assets would be from $1.006 billion to about $1.476 billion as of December 31, 2016, an increase of less than one percent of permanent capital as of that date.

    51 FHFA based this comparison on data provided in each Bank's 10-K filed with the SEC. FHFA did not include a Bank's derivatives holdings or off-balance sheet items in this calculation. FHFA, however, estimates that derivatives and off-balance sheet items account for less than 2 percent of the Banks' total credit risk capital charges, and therefore, believes the exclusion of these from the comparison calculation does not materially affect the conclusion drawn from the comparison.

    Proposed Table 1.3: Non-Rated Assets. Proposed Table 1.3 would set forth the CRPRs for non-rated assets, which term would be defined to include each of the categories of assets currently included within Table 1.4 of the current credit risk capital rule—cash, premises, plant and equipment, and investments list in 12 CFR 1265.3(e) and(f). The proposed CRPRs for these items also would remain unchanged from the current regulation.52

    52See, Final Finance Board Capital Rule, 66 FR at 8288-89.

    Reduced Charges for non-mortgage assets. The rule would carry over in proposed § 1277.4(f)(2) the provisions from the current regulation that allow a Bank to substitute the CRPR associated with collateral posted for, or an unconditional guarantee of, performance under the terms of any non-mortgage asset. FHFA is not proposing any substantive changes to the current provision, although, as already discussed above, FHFA is proposing to adopt different collateral standards applicable to derivatives contracts and to non-mortgage assets.53

    53 As already noted, the proposed definition of non-mortgage asset specifically excludes derivatives contracts so the standards governing collateral posted for, or unconditional guarantees of, non-mortgage assets under proposed § 1277.4(f)(2) would not apply to derivatives contracts. The rule sets forth the collateral and third-party guarantee standards for derivatives contracts in proposed § 1277.4(e)(2), although the standards applicable to third-party guarantors are basically the same under both proposed § 1277.4(e)(2) and proposed § 1277.4(f)(2).

    Proposed § 1277.4(j) would carry over the special provisions for calculation of the capital charge on non-mortgage assets hedged with certain credit derivatives, if a Bank so chooses. The proposed provision would not alter the substance of the current provision as to the criteria that must be met for the special provision to apply or the method of calculating the capital charges. Generally, under the proposed provision, a Bank would be able to substitute the capital charge associated with the credit derivatives (as calculated under proposed § 1277.4(e)) for all or a portion of the capital charge calculated for the non-mortgage assets, if the hedging relationships meet the criteria in the proposed provision.54

    54See Final Finance Board Capital Rule, 66 FR at 8292-94.

    Charge for Non-Mortgage-Related Obligations of the Enterprises. Section 1277.4(f)(3) of the proposed rule would apply a capital charge of zero to any non-mortgage debt security or obligation issued by either of the Enterprises, but only if the Enterprise is operating with capital support or other form of direct financial assistance from the U.S. Government that would enable the Enterprise to repay those obligations. The financial support currently provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury under the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) would be included in this provision. FHFA believes a capital charge of zero for such obligations of the Enterprises is appropriate given the PSPAs and the financial support they provide for the Enterprises with regard to their ability to cover their obligations. Section 1277.4(g)(2) of the proposed rule provides the same treatment for mortgage-related assets that are guaranteed by the Enterprises. The proposed rule would require that the Banks treat obligations issued by other GSEs, including debt obligations of the Banks, the same as other investments in calculating the capital charges. Therefore, each Bank must determine an FHFA Credit Rating for the GSE obligations, based on its internal credit ratings, and then use Table 1.2 to calculate the appropriate credit risk capital charge.

    Credit Risk Charge for Residential Mortgage Assets. Section 1277.4(g)(1) of the proposed rule would establish a capital charge for residential mortgage assets that would be equal to the amortized cost of the asset multiplied by the CRPR assigned to the asset under Table 1.4 of proposed § 1277.4(g). The proposed rule would include an exception to this approach for any residential mortgage asset carried at fair value where the Bank recognizes the change in that asset's fair value in income. For these residential mortgage assets, the capital charge would be based on the fair value of the asset, which would be multiplied by the applicable CRPR. This fair value provision is the same as that to be used when calculating the CRPRs for assets, items, and contracts subject to Table 1.2, and represents a change from the current regulation, which bases the capital charge for on-balance sheet assets on the asset's book value.

    Proposed Table 1.4 would replace Table 1.2 from the current regulation, and would set forth the CRPRs to be used to calculate the capital charges for three categories of internally rated residential mortgage assets—residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations—each of which would be a defined term under the proposed rule. The current regulation assigns CRPRs for these assets by use of a look-up table that delineates the CRPRs by NRSRO rating and residential mortgage asset type. The proposed rule would retain this approach, but would replace the NRSRO rating categories with FHFA Credit Ratings categories. Proposed Table 1.4 would include seven categories of FHFA Credit Ratings labeled “FHFA RMA 1 through 7,” which categories would apply to residential mortgages and residential mortgage securities. Table 1.4 would include seven other categories, which would be labeled “FHFA CMO 1 through 7,” which categories would apply only to collateralized mortgage obligations. As described previously, the term “residential mortgage securities” would include only those instruments that represent an undivided ownership interest in a pool of residential mortgage loans, i.e., instruments that are structured as pass-through securities. The term “collateralized mortgage obligation” would include those mortgage-related instruments that are structured as something other than a pass-through security, i.e., an instrument that is backed or collateralized by residential mortgages or residential mortgage securities, but that include two or more tranches or classes. FHFA also is proposing to replace the subheading within the existing Table 1.2 that refers to “subordinated classes of mortgage assets” with the newly defined term “collateralized mortgage obligations.” The intent of this revision is to avoid any ambiguity about the meaning of the term “subordinated classes,” as used in the current regulation. Under the proposed table, collateralized mortgage obligations in the two highest FHFA CMO credit rating categories would be assigned the same CRPR as mortgage-related securities in the two highest FHFA RMA categories. Collateralized mortgage obligations in lower FHFA CMO categories would be assigned higher CRPRs than those for mortgage-related securities, which reflects the different historical loss experience between the two types of instruments.

    Proposed Table 1.4 would carry over all of the CRPRs from the existing Finance Board regulations without change. As under the current regulation, the credit risk associated with assets placed into proposed FHFA Credit Rating categories 1 through 4 in most cases would likely correspond to the credit risk that is associated with assets having an investment grade rating from an NRSRO. Thus, instruments assigned to the categories of FHFA RMA 1 or FHFA CMO 1 would suggest the highest credit quality and the lowest level of credit risk; categories FHFA RMA 2 or FHFA CMO 2 would suggest high quality and a very low level of credit risk; and categories FHFA RMA 3 or FHFA CMO 3 would suggest an upper-medium level of credit quality and low credit risk. Categories FHFA RMA 4 or FHFA CMO 4 would suggest medium quality and moderate credit risk. The proposed rule provides that all assets assigned to these four categories must have no greater level of credit risk than associated with investments that qualify as “AMA Investment Grade” under FHFA's AMA regulation,55 in the case of RMAs, or as “investment quality” under FHFA's investment regulation,56 in the case of CMOs. FHFA RMA or CMO categories of 5 through 7 would correspond to instruments that do not qualify as “AMA Investment Grade” or “investment quality” under FHFA's AMA or investment regulations, with categories 6 and 7 having increasingly greater risk than category 5 of Table 1.4.

    55 12 CFR 1268.1

    56 12 CFR 1267.1.

    The proposed rule, however, would differ from the current regulation by requiring the Bank to assign each of its mortgage-related assets to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category based on the Bank's internal calculation of a credit rating for the asset, rather than on its NRSRO rating. The proposed rule follows the same approach as would be required for non-mortgage assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts under Table 1.2, which requires that the Bank develop a methodology to assign an internal credit rating to each of its mortgage-related assets, and then align its various internal credit ratings to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating categories in proposed Table 1.4. The Bank's methodology, as applied to residential mortgages, must involve an evaluation of the underlying loans and any credit enhancements or guarantees, as well as an assessment of the creditworthiness of the providers of any such enhancements or guarantees. As applied to residential mortgage securities and collateralized mortgage obligations, the Bank's methodology must involve an evaluation of the underlying mortgage collateral, the structure of the security, and any credit enhancements or guarantees, including the creditworthiness of the providers of such enhancements or guarantees. The Banks' methodologies may incorporate NRSRO credit ratings, provided that they do not rely solely on those ratings. Given that both proposed Table 1.4 and current Table 1.2 have the same structure and are based on historical loss rates, as experienced by financial instruments categorized by the NRSRO rating, the Banks should be able to map their internal credit ratings to proposed Table 1.4 in a straightforward manner. Because the Bank's internal credit ratings will determine the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category for its residential mortgage assets, it is possible that the internally generated rating will differ from the NRSRO rating for a particular instrument, and that the CRPR assigned under the proposed rule would differ from that assigned under the current Finance Board regulations.

    As is the case with respect to the methodology to be used in assigning internal credit ratings to the various FHFA Credit Ratings categories of Table 1.2, the proposed rule would not require a Bank to obtain prior FHFA approval of either its method of calculating the internal credit rating or of its mapping of such ratings to the FHFA Credit Rating categories. FHFA intends to rely on the examination process to review the Banks' internal rating methodologies and mapping processes for these assets. As noted previously, the Banks have been using internal rating methodologies for some time, and any adjustments to those methodologies that FHFA may direct a Bank to undertake in the future based on its supervisory review would not likely have a material effect on a Bank's overall credit risk capital requirement. Nonetheless, the proposed rule would reserve to FHFA the right to require a Bank to change the calculated capital charges for residential mortgage assets to account for any deficiencies identified by FHFA with a Bank's internal residential mortgage asset credit rating methodology, which is identical to the provision relating to assets covered by Table 1.2.

    The proposed rule includes two exceptions that provide for a capital charge of zero for two categories of mortgage assets. First, the proposed rule would apply a capital charge of zero to any residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation (or any portion thereof) that is guaranteed as to the payment of principal and interest by one of the Enterprises, but only if the Enterprise is operating with capital support or other form of direct financial assistance from the United States government that would enable the Enterprise to cover its guarantee. The financial support currently provided by the United States Department of the Treasury under the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements qualifies under this provision. This exception is identical in substance to proposed § 1277.4(f)(3), which pertains to non-mortgage-related debt instruments issued by an Enterprise. Second, the proposed rule would apply a capital charge of zero to any residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation that is guaranteed or insured by a United States government agency or department and is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

    Frequency of Calculation. FHFA proposes to reduce the frequency with which a Bank would have to calculate its credit risk capital charges from monthly to quarterly. Thus, proposed § 1277.4(k) would require each Bank to calculate its credit risk capital requirement at least quarterly based on assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts held as of the last business day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter, unless otherwise instructed by FHFA. The Bank would be expected to meet the calculated capital charge throughout the quarter.57 In the past, a Bank's total credit risk capital charge has not varied so greatly that the change in frequency should raise any safety or soundness concerns. FHFA, therefore, proposes to reduce the operational burdens on the Banks by reducing the frequency of calculation. The proposed rule would reserve FHFA's right to require more frequent calculations if it determined that particular circumstances warranted such a change.

    57 For example, early in the second calendar-year quarter, a Bank would need to calculate its credit risk capital charge based on assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts held as of the last business day of the first calendar-year quarter. The capital charge so calculated would apply for the whole of the second calendar-year quarter.

    Proposed § 1277.5—Market Risk Capital Requirement

    FHFA proposes to readopt the existing market risk capital requirements with only the minor revisions described below.58 The proposed rule would include a new provision, § 1277.5(d)(2), which would confirm that any market risk model or material adjustments to a model that FHFA or the Finance Board had previously approved remain valid unless FHFA affirmatively amends or revokes the prior approval. Section 1277.5(e) of the proposed rule also would change the frequency of a Bank's calculation date of its market risk capital requirement from monthly to quarterly so that it would correspond to the frequency of calculation for the Bank's credit risk capital requirement. Thus, each Bank would calculate its market risk capital requirement at least quarterly, based on assets held as of the last business day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter, unless otherwise instructed by FHFA. The Bank would be expected to meet the calculated capital charge throughout the quarter.

    58 FHFA believes the overall approach to market risk adopted by the Finance Board remains valid and continues to provide a reasonable estimate of a Bank's market risk exposure. See Final Finance Board Bank Capital Rule, 66 FR at 8294-99.

    FHFA proposes to repeal the additional capital requirement that applies whenever a Bank's market value of capital is less than 85 percent of its book value of capital (85 Percent Test), which is located at 12 CFR 932.5 of the Finance Board regulations. This provision has become superfluous because FHFA can monitor a Bank's market value of capital and has other authority to impose additional capital requirements on a Bank if necessary.59 Hence, FHFA has no reason to retain the provision in the rule. Furthermore, as applied under the current regulation, the 85 Percent Test has proven to be both very pro-cyclical (requiring additional capital during a market downturn, when the Bank is least able to raise capital) and inflexible. FHFA can more effectively address a Bank under stress by considering a broader set of facts and measures prior to making any determination as to when and how much additional capital should be required. FHFA also has additional authority to deal with Banks that become undercapitalized, which the Finance Board did not possess when it adopted the 85 Percent Test.60

    59See 12 U.S.C. 4612(c), (d), and (e); 12 CFR part 1225. The Director of FHFA has the authority to adopt regulations establishing a higher minimum capital limit for the Banks, if necessary to ensure that they operate in safe and sound manner, as well as to order temporary increases in the minimum capital level for a particular Bank, and by order or regulation to establish such capital or reserve requirements with respect to any product or activity of a Bank.

    60See 12 U.S.C. 4614, 4615, 4616, and 4617.

    Proposed § 1277.6—Operational Risk Capital Requirement

    FHFA proposes to carry over the current approach set forth in § 932.6 of the Finance Board regulations for calculating a Bank's operational risk capital requirement. As a consequence, proposed § 1277.6 provides that a Bank's operational risk capital requirement shall equal 30 percent of the sum of the Bank's credit risk and market capital requirements. The Finance Board originally based the requirement on a statutory requirement applicable to the Enterprises, noting that given the difficulties of empirically measuring operational risk, it was reasonable to rely on the statutorily mandated provisions for guidance.61 Congress has since repealed the specific operational risk capital provision related to the Enterprises and replaced it with a provision giving the Director of FHFA broad authority to establish risk-based capital charges that ensure the Enterprises operate in a safe and sound manner and maintain sufficient capital and reserves against their risks.62 Nevertheless, FHFA believes that the 30 percent operational risk charge has provided a reasonable capital cushion for the Banks against operational risk losses and has not proven excessively burdensome.

    61See Final Finance Board Bank Capital Rule, 66 FR at 8299 (citing 12 U.S.C. 4611(c) (2000)).

    62See 12 U.S.C. 4611(a).

    FHFA also proposes to carry forward the current provisions in the regulation that allows a Bank to reduce the operational risk charge to as low as 10 percent of the combined market and credit risk charges if the Bank presents an alternative methodology for assessing or quantifying operational risk that meets with FHFA's approval. The proposed rule also would retain the provision that allows a Bank, subject to FHFA approval, to reduce the operational risk charge to as low as 10 percent if the Bank obtains insurance against such risk. However, to be consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act, the proposed rule would replace the current requirement that any such insurer have a credit rating from an NRSRO no lower than the second highest investment category with a requirement that FHFA find the insurance provider acceptable.

    Proposed § 1277.7—Limits on Unsecured Extensions of Credit; Reporting Requirements

    With the exception of the revisions described below, FHFA proposes to carry over the substance of the current Finance Board regulations pertaining to a Bank's unsecured extensions of credit to a single counterparty or group of affiliated counterparties. Section 1277.7 of the proposed rule would include most of the provisions now found at 12 CFR 932.9 of the Finance Board regulations. The principal revision to the existing regulation would be to determine unsecured credit limits based on a Bank's internal credit rating for a particular counterparty and the corresponding FHFA Credit Rating category for such exposures, rather than on NRSRO credit ratings. This change would bring the rule into compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act mandate that agencies replace regulatory provisions that rely on NRSRO credit ratings with alternative standards to assess credit quality.

    FHFA Credit Ratings. Under the proposed rule, a Bank would apply the unsecured credit limits based on the same FHFA Credit Ratings categories used in proposed Table 1.2 for determining CRPRs for non-mortgage assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts. Thus, a Bank would develop a methodology for assigning an internal rating for each counterparty or obligation, and would align its various credit ratings to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating categories for determining the applicable unsecured credit limit. The proposed amendments also would remove from the current regulation all distinctions between short- and long-term ratings. The Finance Board regulations distinguished between those ratings because the regulations relied on NRSRO ratings, and those distinctions have proven to create certain complications in applying and monitoring the regulation. Therefore, under the proposed rule, a Bank would determine a single rating for a specific counterparty or obligation when applying the unsecured credit limits, regardless of the term of the underlying unsecured credit obligations. Because the proposed rule would require a Bank to use the same methodology to arrive at an internal credit rating, and to align to the FHFA Credit Rating categories as used under Table 1.2, the end result would be that a Bank would use the same FHFA Credit Rating category for a specific counterparty or obligation in calculating both the credit risk capital charge under proposed § 1277.4 and the unsecured credit limit under proposed § 1277.7.

    Limits on Exposure to a Single Counterparty. As under the current regulation, the general limit on unsecured credit to a single counterparty would be calculated under the proposed rule by multiplying a percentage maximum capital exposure limit associated with a particular FHFA Credit Rating category by the lesser of either the Bank's total capital, or the counterparty's Tier 1 capital, or total capital, in each case as defined by the counterparty's primary regulator. In cases where the counterparty does not have a regulatory Tier 1 capital or total capital measure, the Bank would determine a similar capital measure to use, as under the current regulations.

    Proposed Table 1 to § 1277.7 sets forth the applicable maximum capital exposure limits used to calculate the relevant unsecured credit limit. These limits are: (i) 15 percent for a counterparty determined to have an FHFA 1 rating; (ii) 14 percent for a counterparty with an FHFA 2 rating; (iii) nine percent for a counterparty with an FHFA 3 rating; (iv) three percent for a counterparty with an FHFA 4 rating; and (v) one percent for any counterparty rated FHFA 5 or lower. The numerical limits are the same as those in the current regulation, with the differences in proposed Table 1 to § 1277.7 being the use of the FHFA Credit Rating categories in place of the NRSRO ratings.63 As part of its oversight of the Banks, FHFA monitors the role of the Banks in the unsecured credit markets and may propose additional amendments to these exposure limits if circumstances warrant.

    63 The Finance Board explained its reasons for setting these maximum capital exposure limits when it proposed the current unsecured credit regulation. See Proposed Rule: Unsecured Credit Limits for the Federal Home Loan Banks, 66 FR 41474, 41478-80 (Aug. 8, 2001) (hereinafter, Finance Board Proposed Unsecured Credit Rule).

    As under the current regulation, the general unsecured credit limit, i.e., the appropriate percentage of the lesser of the Bank or counterparty's capital, would apply to all extensions of unsecured credit to a single counterparty that arise from a Bank's on- and off-balance sheet and derivatives transactions, other than sales of federal funds with a maturity of one day or less and sales of federal funds subject to continuing contract.64 Similarly, the proposed rule would retain a separate overall limit, which would apply to all unsecured extensions of unsecured credit to a single counterparty that arise from a Bank's on- and off-balance sheet and derivatives transactions, but which would include sales of federal funds with a maturity of one day or less and sales of federal funds that are subject to a continuing contract. The amount of the overall limit would remain unchanged at twice the amount of the general limit.65

    64 The proposed rule would carry over the definition of “sales of federal funds subject to a continuing contract” from § 930.1 without change.

    65 The Finance Board explained its reasons for adopting a special limit for sales of federal funds with a maturity of one day or less and sales of federal funds subject to continuing contract when it adopted the current unsecured credit regulation. The Finance Board stated that Banks have financial incentives to lend into the federal funds markets, i.e., the GSE funding advantage and fewer permissible investments than are available to commercial banks, and that permitting such lending without limits would be imprudent. See Final Rule: Unsecured Credit Limits for the Federal Home Loan Banks, 66 FR 66718, 66720-21 (Dec. 27, 2001) (hereinafter, Finance Board Final Unsecured Credit Rule). See also, Finance Board Proposed Unsecured Credit Rule, 66 FR at 41476.

    The proposed rule also would retain, with some revisions, the approach used by the current regulation with respect to NRSRO rating downgrades of a counterparty or obligation. The proposed rule would not use the term “downgrade” because that term is more appropriately associated with an action taken by a third-party ratings organization, such as an NRSRO. Instead, the proposed rule would provide that if a Bank revises its internal credit rating for a particular counterparty or obligation, it shall thereafter assign the counterparty or obligation to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category based on that revised internal rating. The proposed rule further provides that if the revised rating results in a lower FHFA Credit Rating category, then any subsequent extension of unsecured credit must comply with the new limit calculated using the lower credit rating. The proposed rule makes clear, however, that a Bank need not unwind any existing unsecured credit exposures as a result of the lower limit, provided they were originated in compliance with the unsecured credit limits in effect at that time. The proposed rule would continue to consider any renewal of an existing unsecured extension of credit, including a decision not to terminate a sale of federal funds subject to a continuing contract, as a new transaction, which would be subject to the recalculated limit.

    Affiliated Counterparties. The proposed rule would readopt without substantive change the current provision limiting a Bank's aggregate unsecured credit exposure to groups of affiliated counterparties. Thus, in addition to being subject to the limits on individual counterparties, a Bank's unsecured credit exposure from all sources, including federal funds transactions, to all affiliated counterparties under the proposed rule could not exceed 30 percent of the Bank's total capital. The proposed rule would also readopt the current definition of affiliated counterparty.

    State, Local, or Tribal Government Obligations. The proposed rule also carries over without substantive change the special provision in the current regulation applicable to calculating limits for certain unsecured obligations issued by state, local, or tribal governmental agencies. This provision, which would be located at § 1277.7(a)(3), would allow the Banks to calculate the limit for these covered obligations based on Bank capital—rather than on the lesser of the Bank or counterparty's capital—and the rating assigned to the particular obligation. As under the current regulation, all obligations from the same issuer and having the same assigned rating may not exceed the limit associated with that rating, and the exposure from all obligations from that issuer cannot exceed the limit calculated for the highest rated obligation that a Bank actually has purchased. As explained by the Finance Board when it adopted the current regulation, this special provision reflected the fact that the state, local, or tribal agencies at issue often had low capital, their obligations had some backing from collateral but were not always fully secured in the traditional sense, and the Banks' purchase of these obligations had a mission nexus.66

    66See Finance Board Final Unsecured Credit Rule, 66 FR at 66723-24.

    GSE Provision. FHFA proposes to amend the special limit that the current regulation applies to GSEs. Specifically, proposed § 1277.7(c) would apply a special limit only if the GSE counterparty were operating with capital support or other form of direct financial assistance from the U.S. government that would enable the GSE to repay its obligations. In such a case, the proposed rule would set the Bank's unsecured credit limit, including all federal funds transactions, at 100 percent of the Bank's capital. That limit is the same as the one that applies to the Banks' exposures to the Enterprises, as calculated under the current regulation pursuant to FHFA Regulatory Interpretation 2010-RI-05, which the proposed rule would codify into the regulations.67 A Bank would calculate its unsecured credit limit for any other GSE (other than another Bank) that does not meet these criteria the same way that it would for any other counterparty.68

    67See https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/LegalDocuments/Documents/Regulatory-Interpretations/2010-RI-05.pdf.

    68 This approach for GSEs is similar to the approach adopted jointly by FHFA and other prudential regulators in the margin and capital rules for uncleared swaps. In the margin and capital rules, agencies provide different treatment for collateral issued by a GSE operating with explicit United States government support from that issued by other GSEs. See, Final Rule: Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 80 FR 74840, 74870-71 (Nov. 30, 2015).

    Reporting. Proposed § 1277.7(e) would carry over the provisions from the current regulation that require a Bank to report certain unsecured exposures and violations of the unsecured credit limits. FHFA would expect a Bank to make these reports in accordance with any instructions in FHFA Data Reporting Manual or in applicable related guidance issued by FHFA.69

    69See, Advisory Bulletin: FHLBank Unsecured Credit Exposure Reporting, AB 2015-04 (July 1, 2015).

    Calculation of Credit Exposures. Proposed § 1277.7(f) would establish the requirements for measuring a Bank's unsecured extensions of credit. For on-balance sheet transactions, other than derivative transactions, the rule would provide that the unsecured extension of credit would equal the amortized cost of the transaction plus net payments due the Bank, subject to an exception for those transactions or obligations that the Bank carries at fair value where any change in fair value is recognized in income. For these items, the unsecured extension of credit would equal the fair value of the item. This approach is similar to the approach applied under proposed § 1277.4 for calculating credit risk capital charges for non-mortgage assets. FHFA believes that this approach best captures the amount that a Bank has at risk should a counterparty default on any unsecured credit extended by the Bank.

    For non-cleared derivatives transactions, the total unsecured credit exposure would equal the Bank's current and future potential credit exposures calculated in accordance with the proposed credit risk capital provision, plus the amount of any collateral posted by the Bank that exceeds the amount the Bank owes to its counterparty, but only to the extent such excess posted collateral is not held by a third-party custodian in accordance with FHFA's margin and capital rule for uncleared swaps.70 Similar to determining a credit exposure for a derivatives contract under the credit risk capital provision, the Bank would not count as an unsecured extension of credit any portion of the current and future potential credit exposure that is covered by collateral posted by a counterparty and held by or on behalf of the Bank, so long as the collateral is held in accordance with the requirements in proposed § 1277.4(e)(2) and (e)(3).

    70See 12 CFR 1221.7(c) and (d). Thus, the amount of collateral that is posted by a Bank and is segregated with a third-party custodian consistent with the requirements of the swaps margin and capital rule would not be included in the Bank's unsecured credit exposure arising from a particular derivatives contract.

    For off-balance sheet items, the unsecured extension of credit would equal the credit equivalent amount for that item, calculated in accordance with proposed § 1277.4(g). As with the current regulation, proposed § 1277.7(f) also provides that any debt obligation or debt security (other than a mortgage-backed or other asset-backed security or acquired member asset) shall be considered an unsecured extension of credit. Also consistent with the current regulation, this provision provides an exception for any amount owed to the Bank under a debt obligation or debt security for which the Bank holds collateral consistent with the requirements of proposed § 1277.4(f)(2)(ii) or any other amount that FHFA determines on a case-by-case basis should not be considered an unsecured extension of credit.

    Exceptions to the unsecured credit limits. Section 1277.7(g) of the proposed rule would include four separate exceptions to the regulatory limits on extensions of unsecured credit. Two of these exceptions, pertaining to obligations of or guaranteed by the U.S. and to extensions of credit from one Bank to another Bank, are being carried over without change from the current Finance Board regulations. The proposed rule would add a third exception, which would apply to any derivatives transaction accepted for clearing by a derivatives clearing organization. FHFA proposes to exclude cleared derivatives transactions from the rule given the Dodd-Frank Act mandates that parties clear certain standardized derivatives transactions. When a Bank submits a derivatives contract for clearing, the derivatives clearing organization becomes the counterparty to the contract. Given that a limited number of derivatives clearing organizations, or in some cases only a single organization, may clear specific classes of contracts, imposing the unsecured limits on cleared derivatives contracts may make it difficult for the Banks to fulfill the legal requirement to clear these contracts and frustrate the intent of the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, the derivatives clearing organizations are subject to comprehensive federal regulatory oversight including regulations designed to protect the customers that use the clearing services. Even though FHFA proposes to exclude cleared derivatives contracts from coverage under this rule, it would expect Banks to develop internal policies to address exposures to specific clearing organizations that take account of the Bank's specific derivatives activity and clearing options. The proposed rule would add a fourth exception, which would incorporate the substance of a Finance Board regulatory interpretation, 2002-RI-05, pertaining to certain obligations issued by state housing finance agencies. Under that provision, a bond issued by a state housing finance agency would not be subject to the unsecured credit limits if the Bank documents that the obligation principally secured by high-quality mortgage loans or mortgage-backed securities or by payments on such assets, is not a subordinated tranche of a bond issuance, and the Bank has determined that it has an internal credit rating of no lower than FHFA 2.

    Proposed § 1277.8—Reporting Requirements

    Proposed § 1277.8 provides that each Bank shall report information related to capital or other matters addressed by part 1277 in accordance with instructions provided in the Data Reporting Manual issued by FHFA, as amended from time to time.

    IV. Considerations of Differences Between the Banks and the Enterprises

    When promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, section 1313(f) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 requires the Director of FHFA (Director) to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability.71 FHFA, in preparing this proposed rule, considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to the above factors. FHFA requests comments from the public about whether these differences should result in any revisions to the proposed rule.

    71See 12 U.S.C. 4513.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule amendments do not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore, FHFA has not submitted any information to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a regulation that has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, small businesses, or small organizations must include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the regulation's impact on small entities. FHFA need not undertake such an analysis if the agency has certified the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). FHFA has considered the impact of the proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted as a final rule, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed rule is applicable only to the Banks, which are not small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Parts 930 and 932

    Capital, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    12 CFR Part 1277

    Capital, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, for reasons stated in the Preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1426, 1436(a), 1440, 1443, 1446, 4511, 4513, 4514, 4526, 4612, FHFA proposes to amend subchapter E of chapter IX and subchapter D of chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    CHAPTER IX—FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD Subchapter E—[Removed and Reserved] 1. Subchapter E, consisting of parts 930 and 932 is removed and reserved. CHAPTER XII—FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY Subchapter D—Federal Home Loan Banks PART 1277—FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS, CAPITAL STOCK AND CAPITAL PLANS 2. The authority citation for part 1277 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1426, 1436(a), 1440, 1443, 1446, 4511, 4513, 4514, 4526, and 4612.

    Subpart A—Definitions 3. Amend § 1277.1 by adding in alphabetical order definitions for “affiliated counterparty,” “charges against the capital of a Bank,” “commitment to make an advance (or acquire a loan) subject to certain drawdown,” “collateralized mortgage obligation,” “credit derivative,” “credit risk,” “derivatives clearing organization,” “derivatives contract,” “eligible master netting agreement,” “exchange rate contracts,” “Government Sponsored Enterprise,” “interest rate contracts,” “market risk,” “market value at risk,” “non-mortgage asset,” “non-rated asset,” “operational risk,” “residential mortgage,” “residential mortgage security,” “sales of federal funds subject to a continuing contract,” and “total assets” to read as follows:
    § 1277.1 Definitions.

    Affiliated counterparty means a counterparty of a Bank that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another counterparty of the Bank. For the purposes of this definition only, direct or indirect ownership (including beneficial ownership) of more than 50 percent of the voting securities or voting interests of an entity constitutes control.

    Charges against the capital of the Bank means an other than temporary decline in the Bank's total equity that causes the value of total equity to fall below the Bank's aggregate capital stock amount.

    Collateralized mortgage obligation means any instrument backed or collateralized by residential mortgages or residential mortgage securities, that includes two or more tranches or classes, or is otherwise structured in any manner other than as a pass-through security.

    Commitment to make an advance (or acquire a loan) subject to certain drawdown means a legally binding agreement that commits the Bank to make an advance or acquire a loan, at or by a specified future date.

    Credit derivative means a derivatives contract that transfers credit risk.

    Credit risk means the risk that the market value, or estimated fair value if market value is not available, of an obligation will decline as a result of deterioration in creditworthiness.

    Derivatives clearing organization means an organization that clears derivatives contracts and is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a derivatives clearing organization pursuant to section 5b(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 7a-1(a)), or that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exempted from registration by rule or order pursuant to section 5b(h) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 7a-1(h)), or is registered with the SEC as a clearing agency pursuant to section 17A of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1), or that the SEC has exempted from registration as a clearing agency under section 17A of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1).

    Derivatives contract means generally a financial contract the value of which is derived from the values of one or more underlying assets, reference rates, or indices of asset values, or credit-related events. Derivatives contracts include interest rate, foreign exchange rate, equity, precious metals, commodity, and credit contracts, and any other instruments that pose similar risks.

    Eligible master netting agreement has the same meaning as set forth in § 1221.2 of this chapter.

    Exchange rate contracts include cross-currency interest-rate swaps, forward foreign exchange rate contracts, currency options purchased, and any similar instruments that give rise to similar risks.

    Government Sponsored Enterprise, or GSE, means a United States Government-sponsored agency or instrumentality originally established or chartered to serve public purposes specified by the United States Congress, but whose obligations are not obligations of the United States and are not guaranteed by the United States.

    Interest rate contracts include single currency interest-rate swaps, basis swaps, forward rate agreements, interest-rate options, and any similar instrument that gives rise to similar risks, including when-issued securities.

    Market risk means the risk that the market value, or estimated fair value if market value is not available, of a Bank's portfolio will decline as a result of changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, or equity or commodity prices.

    Market value at risk is the loss in the market value of a Bank's portfolio measured from a base line case, where the loss is estimated in accordance with § 1277.5 of this part.

    Non-mortgage asset means an asset held by a Bank other than an advance, a non-rated asset, a residential mortgage, a residential mortgage security, a collateralized mortgage obligation, or a derivatives contract.

    Non-rated asset means a Bank's cash, premises, plant and equipment, and investments authorized pursuant to § 1265.3(e) and (f).

    Operational risk means the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems, or from external events.

    Residential mortgage means a loan secured by a residential structure that contains one-to-four dwelling units, regardless of whether the structure is attached to real property. The term encompasses, among other things, loans secured by individual condominium or cooperative units and manufactured housing, whether or not the manufactured housing is considered real property under state law, and participation interests in such loans.

    Residential mortgage security means any instrument representing an undivided interest in a pool of residential mortgages.

    Sales of federal funds subject to a continuing contract means an overnight federal funds loan that is automatically renewed each day unless terminated by either the lender or the borrower.

    Total assets mean the total assets of a Bank, as determined in accordance with GAAP.

    4. Add Subpart B, consisting of §§ 1277.2 through 1277.8 to read as follows: Subpart B—Bank Capital Requirements Sec. 1277.2 Total capital requirement. 1277.3 Risk-based capital requirement. 1277.4 Credit risk capital requirement. 1277.5 Market risk capital requirement. 1277.6 Operational risk capital requirement. 1277.7 Limits on unsecured extensions of credit; reporting requirements. 1277.8 Reporting requirements.
    § 1277.2 Total capital requirement.

    Each Bank shall maintain at all times:

    (a) Total capital in an amount at least equal to 4.0 percent of the Bank's total assets; and

    (b) A leverage ratio of total capital to total assets of at least 5.0 percent of the Bank's total assets. For purposes of determining this leverage ratio, total capital shall be computed by multiplying the Bank's permanent capital by 1.5 and adding to this product all other components of total capital.

    § 1277.3 Risk-based capital requirement.

    Each Bank shall maintain at all times permanent capital in an amount at least equal to the sum of its credit risk capital requirement, its market risk capital requirement, and its operational risk capital requirement, calculated in accordance with §§ 1277.4, 1277.5, and 1277.6 of this part, respectively.

    § 1277.4 Credit risk capital requirement.

    (a) General requirement. Each Bank's credit risk capital requirement shall equal the sum of the Bank's individual credit risk capital charges for all advances, residential mortgage assets, non-mortgage assets, non-rated assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts, as calculated in accordance with this section.

    (b) Credit risk capital charge for residential mortgage assets. The credit risk capital charge for residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations shall be determined as set forth in paragraph (g) of this section.

    (c) Credit risk capital charge for advances, non-mortgage assets, and non-rated assets. Except as provided in paragraph (j) of this section, each Bank's credit risk capital charge for advances, non-mortgage assets, and non-rated assets shall be equal to the amortized cost of the asset multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned to that asset pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. For any such asset carried at fair value where any change in fair value is recognized in the Bank's income, the Bank shall calculate the capital charge based on the fair value of the asset rather than its amortized cost.

    (d) Credit risk capital charge for off-balance sheet items. Each Bank's credit risk capital charge for an off-balance sheet item shall be equal to the credit equivalent amount of such item, as determined pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section, multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned to that item pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) and Table 1.2 to § 1277.4, except that the credit risk percentage requirement applied to the credit equivalent amount for a standby letter of credit shall be that for an advance with the same remaining maturity as that of the standby letter of credit, as specified in Table 1.1 to § 1277.4.

    (e) Derivatives contracts. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4), the credit risk capital charge for a derivatives contract entered into by a Bank shall equal, after any adjustment allowed under paragraph (e)(2), the sum of:

    (i) The current credit exposure for the derivatives contract, calculated in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned to that derivatives contract pursuant to Table 1.2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, provided that a Bank shall deem the remaining maturity of the derivatives contract to be less than one year for the purpose of applying Table 1.2; plus

    (ii) The potential future credit exposure for the derivatives contract, calculated in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section, multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned to that derivatives contract pursuant to Table 1.2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, where a Bank uses the actual remaining maturity of the derivatives contract for the purpose of applying Table 1.2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this section; plus

    (iii) A credit risk capital charge applicable to the amount of collateral posted by the Bank with respect to a derivatives contract that exceeds the Bank's current payment obligation under that derivatives contract, where the charge equals the amount of such excess collateral multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned under Table 1.2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the custodian or other party that holds the collateral, and where a Bank deems the exposure to have a remaining maturity of one year or less when applying Table 1.2.

    (2)(i) The credit risk capital charge calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section may be adjusted for any collateral held by or on behalf of the Bank in accordance with paragraph (e)(3) of this section against an exposure from the derivatives contract as follows:

    (A) The discounted value of the collateral shall first be applied to reduce the current credit exposure of the derivatives contract subject the capital charge;

    (B) If the total discounted value of the collateral held exceeds the current credit exposure of the contract, any remaining amounts may be applied to reduce the amount of the potential future credit exposure of the derivatives contract subject to the capital charge; and

    (C) The amount of the collateral used to reduce the exposure to the derivatives contract is subject to the applicable credit risk capital charge required by paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section.

    (ii) If a Bank's counterparty's payment obligations under a derivatives contract are unconditionally guaranteed by a third-party, then the credit risk percentage requirement applicable to the derivatives contract may be that associated with the guarantor, rather than the Bank's counterparty.

    (3) The credit risk capital charge may be adjusted as described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) for collateral held against the derivatives contract exposure only if the collateral is:

    (i) Held by, or has been paid to, the Bank or held by an independent, third-party custodian on behalf of the Bank pursuant to a custody agreement that meets the requirements of § 1221.7(c) and (d) of this chapter;

    (ii) Legally available to absorb losses;

    (iii) Of a readily determinable value at which it can be liquidated by the Bank; and

    (iv) Subject to an appropriate discount to protect against price decline during the holding period and the costs likely to be incurred in the liquidation of the collateral, provided that such discount shall equal at least the minimum discount required under Appendix B to part 1221 of this chapter for collateral listed in that Appendix, or be estimated by the Bank based on appropriate assumptions about the price risks and liquidation costs for collateral not listed in Appendix B to part 1221.

    (4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this paragraph (e), the credit risk capital charge for:

    (i) A foreign exchange rate contract (excluding gold contracts) with an original maturity of 14 calendar days or less shall be zero;

    (ii) A derivatives contract cleared by a derivatives clearing organization shall equal 0.16 percent times the sum of the following:

    (A) The current credit exposure for the derivatives contract, calculated in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section;

    (B) The potential future credit exposure for the derivatives contract calculated in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section; and

    (C) The amount of collateral that the Bank has posted to, and is held by, the derivatives clearing organization, but only to the extent the amount exceeds the Bank's current credit exposure to the derivatives clearing organization.

    (f) Determination of credit risk percentage requirements. (1) General. (i) Each Bank shall determine the credit risk percentage requirement applicable to each advance and each non-rated asset by identifying the appropriate category from Tables 1.1 or 1.3 to § 1277.4, respectively, to which the advance or non-rated asset belongs. Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this section, each Bank shall determine the credit risk percentage requirement applicable to each non-mortgage asset, off-balance sheet item, and derivatives contract by identifying the appropriate category set forth in Table 1.2 to § 1277.4 to which the asset, item, or contract belongs, given its FHFA Credit Rating category, as determined in accordance with paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, and remaining maturity. Each Bank shall use the applicable credit risk percentage requirement to calculate the credit risk capital charge for each asset, item, or contract in accordance with paragraphs (c), (d), or (e) of this section, respectively. The relevant categories and credit risk percentage requirements are provided in the following Tables 1.1 through 1.3 to § 1277.4—

    Table 1.1 to § 1277.4—Requirement for Advances Maturity of advances Percentage applicable to
  • advances
  • Advances with: Remaining maturity <=4 years 0.09 Remaining maturity >4 years to 7 years 0.23 Remaining maturity >7 years to 10 years 0.35 Remaining maturity >10 years 0.51
    Table 1.2 to § 1277.4—Requirement for Internally Rated Non-Mortgage Assets, Off-Balance Sheet Items, and Derivatives Contracts [Based on remaining maturity] FHFA Credit Rating Applicable percentage <=1 year >1 yr to 3 yrs >3 yrs to 7 yrs >7 yrs to 10 yrs >10 yrs U.S. Government Securities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FHFA 1 0.20 0.59 1.37 2.28 3.32 FHFA 2 0.36 0.87 1.88 3.07 4.42 FHFA 3 0.64 1.31 2.65 4.22 6.01 FHFA 4 3.24 4.79 7.89 11.51 15.64 FHFA Ratings Corresponding to Below FHFA Investment Quality “FHFA Investment Quality” has the meaning provided in 12 CFR 1267.1 FHFA 5 9.24 11.46 15.90 21.08 27.00 FHFA 6 15.99 18.06 22.18 26.99 32.49 FHFA 7 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Table 1.3 to § 1277.4—Requirement for Non-Rated Assets Type of unrated asset Applicable percentage Cash 0.00 Premises, Plant and Equipment 8.00 Investments Under 12 CFR 1265.3(e) & (f) 8.00

    (ii) Each Bank shall develop a methodology to be used to assign an internal credit risk rating to each counterparty, asset, item, and contract that is subject to Table 1.2 to § 1277.4. The methodology shall involve an evaluation of counterparty or asset risk factors, and may incorporate, but must not rely solely upon, credit ratings prepared by credit rating agencies. Each Bank shall align its various internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories of FHFA Credit Ratings included in Table 1.2 to § 1277.4. In doing so, each Bank shall ensure that the credit risk associated with any asset assigned to FHFA Categories 1 through 4 is no greater than that associated with an instrument that would be deemed to be of “investment quality,” as that term is defined by § 1267.1 of this chapter. FHFA Categories 3 through 1 shall include assets of progressively higher credit quality than Category 4, and FHFA Credit Rating categories 5 through 7 shall include assets of progressively lower credit quality. After aligning its internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories of Table 1.2 to § 1277.4, each Bank shall assign each counterparty, asset, item, and contract to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category based on the applicable internal credit rating.

    (2) Exception for assets subject to a guarantee or secured by collateral. (i) When determining the applicable credit risk percentage requirement from Table 1.2 to § 1277.4 for a non-mortgage asset that is subject to an unconditional guarantee by a third-party guarantor or is secured as set forth in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, the Bank may substitute the credit risk percentage requirement associated with the guarantor or the collateral, as appropriate, for the credit risk percentage requirement associated with that portion of the asset subject to the guarantee or covered by the collateral.

    (ii) For purposes of paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, a non-mortgage asset shall be considered to be secured if the collateral is:

    (A) Actually held by the Bank or an independent, third-party custodian on the Bank's behalf, or, if posted by a Bank member and permitted under the Bank's collateral agreement with that member, by the Bank's member or an affiliate of that member where the term “affiliate” has the same meaning as in § 1266.1 of this chapter;

    (B) Legally available to absorb losses;

    (C) Of a readily determinable value at which it can be liquidated by the Bank;

    (D) Held in accordance with the provisions of the Bank's member products policy established pursuant to § 1239.30 of this chapter, if the collateral has been posted by a member or an affiliate of a member; and

    (E) Subject to an appropriate discount to protect against price decline during the holding period and the costs likely to be incurred in the liquidation of the collateral.

    (3) Exception for obligations of the Enterprises. A Bank may use a credit risk capital charge of zero for any non-mortgage-related debt instrument or obligation issued by an Enterprise, provided that the Enterprise receives capital support or other form of direct financial assistance from the United States government that enables the Enterprise to repay those obligations.

    (4) Exception for methodology deficiencies. FHFA may direct a Bank, on a case-by-case basis, to change the calculated credit risk capital charge for any non-mortgage asset, off-balance sheet item, or derivatives contract, as necessary to account for any deficiency that FHFA identifies with respect to a Bank's internal credit rating methodology for such assets, items, or contracts.

    (g) Credit risk capital charges for residential mortgage assets—(1) Bank determination of credit risk percentage. (i) Each Bank's credit risk capital charge for a residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation shall be equal to the asset's amortized cost multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned to that asset pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) or (g)(2) of this section. For any such asset carried at fair value where any change in fair value is recognized in the Bank's income, the Bank shall calculate the capital charge based on the fair value of the asset rather than its amortized cost.

    (ii) Each Bank shall determine the credit risk percentage requirement applicable to each residential mortgage and residential mortgage security by identifying the appropriate FHFA RMA category set forth in Table 1.4 to § 1277.4 to which the asset belongs, and shall determine the credit risk percentage requirement applicable to each collateralized mortgage obligation by identifying the appropriate FHFA CMO category set forth in Table 1.4 to § 1277.4 to which the asset belongs, with the appropriate categories being determined in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this section.

    (iii) Each Bank shall develop a methodology to be used to assign an internal credit risk rating to each of its residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations. For residential mortgages, the methodology shall involve an evaluation of the residential mortgages and any credit enhancements or guarantees, including an assessment of the creditworthiness of the providers of such enhancements or guarantees. In the case of a residential mortgage security or collateralized mortgage obligation, the methodology shall involve an evaluation of the underlying mortgage collateral, the structure of the security, and any credit enhancements or guarantees, including an assessment of the creditworthiness of the providers of such enhancements or guarantees. Such methodologies may incorporate, but may not rely solely upon, credit ratings prepared by credit ratings agencies. Each Bank shall align its various internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories of FHFA Credit Ratings included in Table 1.4 to § 1277.4. In doing so, each Bank shall ensure that the credit risk associated with any asset assigned to categories FHFA RMA 1 through 4 or FHFA CMO 1 through 4 is no greater than that associated with an instrument that would be deemed to be of “investment quality,” as that term is defined by 12 CFR 1267.1. FHFA Categories 3 through 1 shall include assets of progressively higher credit quality than Category 4, and FHFA Categories 5 through 7 shall include assets of progressively lower credit quality. After aligning its internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories of Table 1.4 to § 1277.4, each Bank shall assign each of its residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, and collateralized mortgage obligation to the appropriate FHFA Credit Ratings category based on the Bank's internal credit rating of that asset.

    Table 1.4 to § 1277.4—Internally Rated Residential Mortgage Assets Percentage applicable Categories for residential mortgages and residential mortgage securities Ratings Above “AMA Investment Grade” *: FHFA RMA 1 0.37 FHFA RMA 2 0.60 FHFA RMA 3 0.86 FHFA RMA 4 1.20 Ratings Below “AMA Investment Grade”: FHFA RMA 5 2.40 FHFA RMA 6 4.80 FHFA RMA 7 34.00 Categories For Collateralized Mortgage Obligations Ratings Above “FHFA Investment Quality” **: FHFA CMO 1 0.37 FHFA CMO 2 0.60 FHFA CMO 3 1.60 FHFA CMO 4 4.45 Ratings Below “FHFA Investment Quality”: FHFA CMO 5 13.00 FHFA CMO 6 34.00 FHFA CMO 7 100.00 * “AMA Investment Grade” has the meaning provided in 12 CFR 1268.1. ** “FHFA Investment Quality” has the same meaning as “investment quality” as provided in 12 CFR 1267.1.

    (2) Exceptions to Table 1.4 to § 1277.4 credit risk percentages. (i) A Bank may use a credit risk capital charge of zero for any residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation, or portion thereof, guaranteed by an Enterprise as to payment of principal and interest, provided that the Enterprise receives capital support or other form of direct financial assistance from the United States government that enables the Enterprise to repay those obligations;

    (ii) A Bank may use a credit risk capital charge of zero for a residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation, or any portion thereof, guaranteed or insured as to payment of principal and interest by a department or agency of the United States government that is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States; and

    (iii) FHFA may direct a Bank, on a case-by-case basis, to change the calculated credit risk capital charge for any residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation, as necessary to account for any deficiency that FHFA identifies with respect to a Bank's internal credit rating methodology for residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, or collateralized mortgage obligations.

    (h) Calculation of credit equivalent amount for off-balance sheet items. (1) General requirement. The credit equivalent amount for an off-balance sheet item shall be determined by an FHFA-approved model or shall be equal to the face amount of the instrument multiplied by the credit conversion factor assigned to such risk category of instruments, subject to the exceptions in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, provided in the following Table 2 to § 1277.4:

    Table 2 to § 1277.4—Credit Conversion Factors for Off-Balance Sheet Items Instrument Credit
  • conversion factor
  • (in percent)
  • Asset sales with recourse where the credit risk remains with the Bank 100 Commitments to make advances subject to certain drawdown Commitments to acquire loans subject to certain drawdown Standby letters of credit 50 Other commitments with original maturity of over one year Other commitments with original maturity of one year or less 20

    (2) Exceptions. The credit conversion factor shall be zero for Other Commitments With Original Maturity of Over One Year and Other Commitments With Original Maturity of One Year or Less, for which Table 2 to § 1277.4 would otherwise apply credit conversion factors of 50 percent or 20 percent, respectively, if the commitments are unconditionally cancelable, or effectively provide for automatic cancellation, due to the deterioration in a borrower's creditworthiness, at any time by the Bank without prior notice.

    (i) Calculation of credit exposures for derivatives contracts. (1) Current credit exposure. (i) Single derivatives contract. The current credit exposure for derivatives contracts that are not subject to an eligible master netting agreement shall be:

    (A) If the mark-to-market value of the contract is positive, the mark-to-market value of the contract; or

    (B) If the mark-to-market value of the contract is zero or negative, zero.

    (ii) Derivatives contracts subject to an eligible master netting agreement. The current credit exposure for multiple derivatives contracts executed with a single counterparty and subject to an eligible master netting agreement shall be calculated on a net basis and shall equal:

    (A) The net sum of all positive and negative mark-to-market values of the individual derivatives contracts subject to the eligible master netting agreement, if the net sum of the mark-to-market values is positive; or

    (B) Zero, if the net sum of the mark-to-market values is zero or negative.

    (2) Potential future credit exposure. The potential future credit exposure for derivatives contracts, including derivatives contracts with a negative mark-to-market value, shall be calculated:

    (i) Using an internal initial margin model that meets the requirements of § 1221.8 of this chapter and is approved by FHFA for use by the Bank, or that has been approved under regulations similar to § 1221.8 of this chapter for use by the Bank's counterparty to calculate initial margin for those derivatives contracts for which the calculation is being done; or

    (ii) By applying the standardized approach in Appendix A to Part 1221 of this chapter.

    (j) Credit risk capital charge for non-mortgage assets hedged with credit derivatives. (1) Credit derivatives with a remaining maturity of one year or more. The credit risk capital charge for a non-mortgage asset that is hedged with a credit derivative that has a remaining maturity of one year or more may be reduced only in accordance with paragraph (j)(3) or (j)(4) of this section and only if the credit derivative provides substantial protection against credit losses.

    (2) Credit derivatives with a remaining maturity of less than one year. The credit risk capital charge for a non-mortgage asset that is hedged with a credit derivative that has a remaining maturity of less than one year may be reduced only in accordance with paragraph (j)(3) of this section and only if the remaining maturity on the credit derivative is identical to or exceeds the remaining maturity of the hedged non-mortgage asset and the credit derivative provides substantial protection against credit losses.

    (3) Capital charge reduced to zero. The credit risk capital charge for a non-mortgage asset shall be zero if a credit derivative is used to hedge the credit risk on that asset in accordance with paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this section, provided that:

    (i) The remaining maturity for the credit derivative used for the hedge is identical to or exceeds the remaining maturity for the hedged non-mortgage asset, and either:

    (A) The asset referenced in the credit derivative is identical to the hedged non-mortgage asset; or

    (B) The asset referenced in the credit derivative is different from the hedged non-mortgage asset, but only if the asset referenced in the credit derivative and the hedged non-mortgage asset have been issued by the same obligor, the asset referenced in the credit derivative ranks pari passu to, or more junior than, the hedged non-mortgage asset and has the same maturity as the hedged non-mortgage asset, and cross-default clauses apply; and

    (ii) The credit risk capital charge for the credit derivatives contract calculated pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section is still applied.

    (4) Capital charge reduction in certain other cases. The credit risk capital charge for a non-mortgage asset hedged with a credit derivative in accordance with paragraph (j)(1) of this section shall equal the sum of the credit risk capital charges for the hedged and unhedged portion of the non-mortgage asset provided that:

    (i) The remaining maturity for the credit derivative is less than the remaining maturity for the hedged non-mortgage asset and either:

    (A) The non-mortgage asset referenced in the credit derivative is identical to the hedged asset; or

    (B) The asset referenced in the credit derivative is different from the hedged non-mortgage asset, but only if the asset referenced in the credit derivative and the hedged non-mortgage asset have been issued by the same obligor, the asset referenced in the credit derivative ranks pari passu to, or more junior than, the hedged non-mortgage asset and has the same maturity as the hedged non-mortgage asset, and cross-default clauses apply; and

    (ii) The credit risk capital charge for the unhedged portion of the non-mortgage asset equals:

    (A) The credit risk capital charge for the hedged non-mortgage asset, calculated as the book value of the hedged non-mortgage asset multiplied by that asset's credit risk percentage requirement assigned pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section where the appropriate credit rating is that for the hedged non-mortgage asset and the appropriate maturity is the remaining maturity of the hedged non-mortgage asset; minus

    (B) The credit risk capital charge for the hedged non-mortgage asset, calculated as the book value of the hedged non-mortgage asset multiplied by that asset's credit risk percentage requirement assigned pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section where the appropriate credit rating is that for the hedged non-mortgage asset but the appropriate maturity is deemed to be the remaining maturity of the credit derivative; and

    (iii) The credit risk capital charge for the hedged portion of the non-mortgage asset is equal to the credit risk capital charge for the credit derivative, calculated in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.

    (k) Frequency of calculations. Each Bank shall perform all calculations required by this section at least quarterly, unless otherwise directed by FHFA, using the advances, residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, non-rated assets, non-mortgage assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts held by the Bank, and, if applicable, the values of, or FHFA Credit Ratings categories for, such assets, off-balance sheet items, or derivatives contracts as of the close of business of the last business day of the calendar period for which the credit risk capital charge is being calculated.

    § 1277.5 Market risk capital requirement.

    (a) General requirement. (1) Each Bank's market risk capital requirement shall equal the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk from movements in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices, and equity prices that could occur during periods of market stress, where the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk is determined using an internal market risk model that fulfills the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section and that has been approved by FHFA.

    (2) A Bank may substitute an internal cash flow model to derive a market risk capital requirement in place of that calculated using an internal market risk model under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, provided that:

    (i) The Bank obtains FHFA approval of the internal cash flow model and of the assumptions to be applied to the model; and

    (ii) The Bank demonstrates to FHFA that the internal cash flow model subjects the Bank's assets and liabilities, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts, including related options, to a comparable degree of stress for such factors as will be required for an internal market risk model.

    (b) Measurement of market value at risk under a Bank's internal market risk model. (1) Except as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, each Bank shall use an internal market risk model that estimates the market value of the Bank's assets and liabilities, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts, including any related options, and measures the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk of its assets and liabilities, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts, including related options, from all sources of the Bank's market risks, except that the Bank's model need only incorporate those risks that are material.

    (2) The Bank's internal market risk model may use any generally accepted measurement technique, such as variance-covariance models, historical simulations, or Monte Carlo simulations, for estimating the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk, provided that any measurement technique used must cover the Bank's material risks.

    (3) The measures of the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk shall include the risks arising from the non-linear price characteristics of options and the sensitivity of the market value of options to changes in the volatility of the options' underlying rates or prices.

    (4) The Bank's internal market risk model shall use interest rate and market price scenarios for estimating the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk, but at a minimum:

    (i) The Bank's internal market risk model shall provide an estimate of the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk such that the probability of a loss greater than that estimated shall be no more than one percent;

    (ii) The Bank's internal market risk model shall incorporate scenarios that reflect changes in interest rates, interest rate volatility, option-adjusted spreads, and shape of the yield curve, and changes in market prices, equivalent to those that have been observed over 120-business day periods of market stress. For interest rates, the relevant historical observations should be drawn from the period that starts at the end of the previous month and goes back to the beginning of 1978;

    (iii) The total number of, and specific historical observations identified by the Bank as, stress scenarios shall be:

    (A) Satisfactory to FHFA;

    (B) Representative of the periods of the greatest potential market stress given the Bank's portfolio, and

    (C) Comprehensive given the modeling capabilities available to the Bank; and

    (iv) The measure of the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk may incorporate empirical correlations among interest rates.

    (5) For any consolidated obligations denominated in a currency other than U.S. Dollars or linked to equity or commodity prices, each Bank shall, in addition to fulfilling the criteria of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, calculate an estimate of the market value of its portfolio at risk resulting from material foreign exchange, equity price or commodity price risk, such that, at a minimum:

    (i) The probability of a loss greater than that estimated shall not exceed one percent;

    (ii) The scenarios reflect changes in foreign exchange, equity, or commodity market prices that have been observed over 120-business day periods of market stress, as determined using historical data that is from an appropriate period;

    (iii) The total number of, and specific historical observations identified by the Bank as, stress scenarios shall be:

    (A) Satisfactory to FHFA;

    (B) Representative of the periods of greatest potential stress given the Bank's portfolio; and

    (C) Comprehensive given the modeling capabilities available to the Bank; and

    (iv) The measure of the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk may incorporate empirical correlations within or among foreign exchange rates, equity prices, or commodity prices.

    (c) Independent validation of Bank internal market risk model or internal cash flow model. (1) Each Bank shall conduct an independent validation of its internal market risk model or internal cash flow model within the Bank that is carried out by personnel not reporting to the business line responsible for conducting business transactions for the Bank. Alternatively, the Bank may obtain independent validation by an outside party qualified to make such determinations. Validations shall be done periodically, commensurate with the risk associated with the use of the model, or as frequently as required by FHFA.

    (2) The results of such independent validations shall be reviewed by the Bank's board of directors and provided promptly to FHFA.

    (d) FHFA approval of Bank internal market risk model or internal cash flow model. (1) Each Bank shall obtain FHFA approval of an internal market risk model or an internal cash flow model, including subsequent material adjustments to the model made by the Bank, prior to the use of any model. Each Bank shall make such adjustments to its model as may be directed by FHFA.

    (2) A model and any material adjustments to such model that were approved by FHFA or the Federal Housing Finance Board shall meet the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless such approval is revoked or amended by FHFA.

    (e) Frequency of calculations. Each Bank shall perform any calculations or estimates required under this section at least quarterly, unless otherwise directed by FHFA, using the assets, liabilities, and off-balance sheet items, including derivatives contracts, and options held by the Bank, and if applicable, the values of any such holdings, as of the close of business of the last business day of the calendar period for which the market risk capital requirement is being calculated.

    § 1277.6 Operational risk capital requirement.

    (a) General requirement. Except as authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, each Bank's operational risk capital requirement shall at all times equal 30 percent of the sum of the Bank's credit risk capital requirement and market risk capital requirement.

    (b) Alternative requirements. With the approval of FHFA, each Bank may have an operational risk capital requirement equal to less than 30 percent but no less than 10 percent of the sum of the Bank's credit risk capital requirement and market risk capital requirement if:

    (1) The Bank provides an alternative methodology for assessing and quantifying an operational risk capital requirement; or

    (2) The Bank obtains insurance to cover operational risk from an insurer acceptable to FHFA.

    § 1277.7 Limits on unsecured extensions of credit; reporting requirements.

    (a) Unsecured extensions of credit to a single counterparty. A Bank shall not extend unsecured credit to any single counterparty (other than a GSE described in and subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section) in an amount that would exceed the limits of this paragraph. If a third-party provides an irrevocable, unconditional guarantee of repayment of a credit (or any part thereof), the third-party guarantor shall be considered the counterparty for purposes of calculating and applying the unsecured credit limits of this section with respect to the guaranteed portion of the transaction.

    (1) General Limits. All unsecured extensions of credit by a Bank to a single counterparty that arise from the Bank's on- and off-balance sheet and derivatives transactions (but excluding the amount of sales of federal funds with a maturity of one day or less and sales of federal funds subject to a continuing contract) shall not exceed the product of the maximum capital exposure limit applicable to such counterparty, as determined in accordance with Table 1 of paragraph (a)(4) of § 1277.7, multiplied by the lesser of:

    (i) The Bank's total capital; or

    (ii) The counterparty's Tier 1 capital, or if Tier 1 capital is not available, total capital (in each case as defined by the counterparty's principal regulator) or some similar comparable measure identified by the Bank.

    (2) Overall limits including sales of overnight federal funds. All unsecured extensions of credit by a Bank to a single counterparty that arise from the Bank's on- and off-balance sheet and derivatives transactions, including the amounts of sales of federal funds with a maturity of one day or less and sales of federal funds subject to a continuing contract, shall not exceed twice the limit calculated pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    (3) Limits for certain obligations issued by state, local, or tribal governmental agencies. The limit set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, when applied to the marketable direct obligations of state, local, or tribal government units or agencies that are excluded from the prohibition against investments in whole mortgage loans or other types of whole loans, or interests in such loans, by § 1267.3(a)(4)(iii) of this chapter, shall be calculated based on the Bank's total capital and the internal credit rating assigned to the particular obligation, as determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this section. If a Bank owns series or classes of obligations issued by a particular state, local, or tribal government unit or agency, or has extended other forms of unsecured credit to such entity falling into different rating categories, the total amount of unsecured credit extended by the Bank to that government unit or agency shall not exceed the limit associated with the highest-rated obligation issued by the entity and actually purchased by the Bank.

    (4) Bank determination of applicable maximum capital exposure limits. (i) Except as set forth in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, a Bank shall determine the maximum capital exposure limit for each counterparty by assigning the counterparty to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category of Table 1 to § 1277.7, based upon the Bank's internal counterparty credit rating, as determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and the Bank's alignment of its counterparty credit ratings to each of the FHFA Credit Rating categories provided in the following Table 1 to § 1277.7:

    Table 1 to § 1277.7—Maximum Limits on Unsecured Extensions of Credit to a Single Counterparty by FHFA Credit Rating Category FHFA Credit Rating of counterparty Maximum
  • Capital
  • exposure limit
  • (in percent)
  • FHFA 1 15 FHFA 2 14 FHFA 3 9 FHFA 4 3 Ratings Below “FHFA Investment Quality” (“FHFA Investment Quality” has the same meaning as “investment quality” as provided by 12 CFR 1267.1) FHFA 5 and Below 1

    (ii) If a Bank determines that a specific debt obligation issued by a counterparty has a lower FHFA Credit Rating category than that applicable to the counterparty, the total amount of the lower-rated obligation held by the Bank may not exceed a sub-limit calculated in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The Bank shall use the lower credit rating associated with the specific obligation to determine the applicable maximum capital exposure sub-limit. For purposes of this paragraph, the internal credit rating of the debt obligation shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

    (5) Bank determination of applicable credit ratings. A Bank shall determine an internal credit rating for each counterparty, and shall align each such credit rating to the FHFA Credit Rating categories of Table 1 to § 1277.7, using the same methodology for calculating the internal ratings and aligning such ratings to the FHFA Credit Rating categories as the Bank uses for calculating the credit risk capital charge for a counterparty or asset under Table 1.2 of § 1277.4(f). As a consequence, the Bank shall use the same FHFA Credit Rating category for a particular counterparty for purposes of applying the unsecured credit limit under this section as used for calculating the credit risk capital charge for obligations issued by that counterparty under Table 1.2 of § 1277.4.

    (b) Unsecured extensions of credit to affiliated counterparties. (1) In general. The total amount of unsecured extensions of credit by a Bank to a group of affiliated counterparties that arise from the Bank's on- and off-balance sheet and derivatives transactions, including sales of federal funds with a maturity of one day or less and sales of federal funds subject to a continuing contract, shall not exceed 30 percent of the Bank's total capital.

    (2) Relation to individual limits. The aggregate limits calculated under paragraph (b)(1) shall apply in addition to the limits on extensions of unsecured credit to a single counterparty imposed by paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Special limits for certain GSEs. Unsecured extensions of credit by a Bank that arise from the Bank's on- and off-balance sheet and derivatives transactions, including from the purchase of any debt or from any sales of federal funds with a maturity of one day or less and from sales of federal funds subject to a continuing contract, with a GSE that is operating with capital support or another form of direct financial assistance from the United States government that enables the GSE to repay those obligations shall not exceed the Bank's total capital.

    (d) Extensions of unsecured credit after reduced rating. If a Bank revises its internal credit rating for any counterparty or obligation, it shall assign the counterparty or obligation to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category based on the revised rating. If the revised internal rating results in a lower FHFA Credit Rating category, then any subsequent extensions of unsecured credit shall comply with the maximum capital exposure limit applicable to that lower rating category, but a Bank need not unwind or liquidate any existing transaction or position that complied with the limits of this section at the time it was entered. For the purposes of this paragraph, the renewal of an existing unsecured extension of credit, including any decision not to terminate any sales of federal funds subject to a continuing contract, shall be considered a subsequent extension of unsecured credit that can be undertaken only in accordance with the lower limit.

    (e) Reporting requirements—(1) Total unsecured extensions of credit. Each Bank shall report monthly to FHFA the amount of the Bank's total unsecured extensions of credit arising from on- and off-balance sheet and derivatives transactions to any single counterparty or group of affiliated counterparties that exceeds 5 percent of:

    (i) The Bank's total capital; or

    (ii) The counterparty's, or affiliated counterparties' combined, Tier 1 capital, or if Tier 1 capital is not available, total capital (in each case as defined by the counterparty's principal regulator), or some similar comparable measure identified by the Bank.

    (2) Total secured and unsecured extensions of credit. Each Bank shall report monthly to FHFA the amount of the Bank's total secured and unsecured extensions of credit arising from on- and off-balance sheet and derivatives transactions to any single counterparty or group of affiliated counterparties that exceeds 5 percent of the Bank's total assets.

    (3) Extensions of credit in excess of limits. A Bank shall report promptly to FHFA any extension of unsecured credit that exceeds any limit set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section. In making this report, a Bank shall provide the name of the counterparty or group of affiliated counterparties to which the excess unsecured credit has been extended, the dollar amount of the applicable limit which has been exceeded, the dollar amount by which the Bank's extension of unsecured credit exceeds such limit, the dates for which the Bank was not in compliance with the limit, and, if applicable, a brief explanation of any extenuating circumstances which caused the limit to be exceeded.

    (f) Measurement of unsecured extensions of credit—(1) In general. For purposes of this section, unsecured extensions of credit will be measured as follows:

    (i) For on-balance sheet transactions (other than a derivatives transaction addressed by paragraph (f)(1)(iii)) of this section, an amount equal to the sum of the amortized cost of the item plus net payments due the Bank. For any such item carried at fair value where any change in fair value would be recognized in the Bank's income, the Bank shall measure the unsecured extension of credit based on the fair value of the item, rather than its amortized cost;

    (ii) For off-balance sheet transactions, an amount equal to the credit equivalent amount of such item, calculated in accordance with § 1277.4(g); and

    (iii) For derivatives transactions not cleared by a derivatives clearing organization, an amount equal to the sum of:

    (A) The Bank's current and potential future credit exposures under the derivatives contract, where those values are calculated in accordance with § 1277.4(i)(1) and (i)(2) respectively, adjusted by the amount of any collateral held by or on behalf of the Bank against the credit exposure from the derivatives contract, as allowed in accordance with the requirements of § 1277.4(e)(2) and (e)(3); and

    (B) The value of any collateral posted by the Bank that exceeds the current amount owed by the Bank to its counterparty under the derivatives contract, where the collateral is not held by a third-party custodian in accordance with § 1221.7(c) and (d) of this chapter.

    (2) Status of debt obligations purchased by the Bank. Any debt obligation or debt security (other than mortgage-backed or other asset-backed securities or acquired member assets) purchased by a Bank shall be considered an unsecured extension of credit for the purposes of this section, except for:

    (i) Any amount owed the Bank against which the Bank holds collateral in accordance with § 1277.4(f)(2)(ii); or

    (ii) Any amount which FHFA has determined on a case-by-case basis shall not be considered an unsecured extension of credit.

    (g) Exceptions to unsecured credit limits. The following items are not subject to the limits of this section:

    (1) Obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United States;

    (2) A derivatives transaction accepted for clearing by a derivatives clearing organization;

    (3) Any extension of credit from one Bank to another Bank; and

    (4) A bond issued by a state housing finance agency if the Bank documents that the obligation in question is:

    (i) Principally secured by high quality mortgage loans or high quality mortgage-backed securities (or funds derived from payments on such assets or from payments from any guarantees or insurance associated with such assets);

    (ii) The most senior class of obligation, if the bond has more than one class; and

    (iii) Determined by the Bank to be rated no lower than FHFA 2, in accordance with this section.

    § 1277.8 Reporting requirements.

    Each Bank shall report information related to capital and other matters addressed by this part 1277 in accordance with instructions provided in the Data Reporting Manual issued by FHFA, as amended from time to time.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Melvin L. Watt, Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13560 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No.FAA-2017-0651; Notice No. 23-17-02-SC] Special Conditions: Game Composites Ltd, GB1 Airplane; Acrobatic Category Aerodynamic Stability AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for the Game Composites Ltd. GB1 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with static stability. This airplane can perform at the highest level of aerobatic competition. To be competitive, the airplane is designed with its lateral and directional axes being decoupled from each other; providing more precise maneuvering. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0651 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 of 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://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 the 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:

    Mr. Ross Schaller, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4162; facsimile (816) 329-4090.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 ask that you send us two copies of written comments.

    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On March 10, 2014, Game Composite Ltd. applied for a type certificate for their new GB1 airplane. The GB1 is a single-engine airplane with a two-place tandem canopy cockpit. It features conventional landing gear, conventional low-wing planform, and is mostly constructed of carbon composite materials. The engine is a Lycoming AEIO-580-B1A, fitted with a model MTV-14-B-C/C190-130 4-blade MT-propeller. The airplane will be approved for Day-VFR operations (non-icing). The maximum takeoff weight is 2,200 pounds in acrobatic category with a maximum operating altitude of 15,000 feet. The never exceed speed (VNE) is 230 knots, the design cruise speed (VC) is 200 knots, and the design maneuvering speed (VA) is 175 knots.

    Acrobatic airplanes previously type certified by the FAA did comply with the stability provisions of part 23, subpart B. However, airplanes like the GB1 are considered as “unlimited” acrobatic airplanes because these airplanes can perform all the maneuvers listed in the Aresti Catalog. Generally, the evolution of the “unlimited” types of acrobatic airplanes, with very low mass, exceptional roll rates, and very high G capabilities—in addition to power to mass ratios—are unique to this type of airplane and have led to airplanes that cannot comply with the stability provisions of the regulations. These airplanes can be type certified in the acrobatic category only with an appropriate set of special conditions and associated limitations.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Game Composites Ltd. must show the GB 1 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by amendments 23-1 through 23-62 thereto.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the GB1 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 or similar novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the GB1 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 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”.

    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 § 21.17(a)(2).

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The GB1 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

    For acrobatic category airplanes with unlimited acrobatic capability:

    Relaxed longitudinal and decoupled lateral static stability characteristics

    Discussion

    Sections 23.173 and 23.177 provide static stability criteria for longitudinal, lateral, and directional axes requirements for an airplane. However, these requirements are not adequate to address the specific issues raised in the flight characteristics of an unlimited aerobatic airplane. Therefore, the FAA has determined special conditions are needed—after a flight-test evaluation—to address the static stability characteristics of the GB1. Accordingly, these special conditions are for the Game Composites Ltd. GB1 airplane's static stability characteristics.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the GB1. Should Game Composites Ltd. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature the FAA would apply these special conditions to that model as well.

    Conclusion

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

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

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special condition as part of the type certification basis for Game Composites GB1 airplanes.

    1. Acrobatic Only Category Static Stability Requirements. a. In place of 14 CFR 23.173, “Static longitudinal stability,” comply with the following: SC23.173 Static Longitudinal Stability

    Under the conditions in 14 CFR 23.175 and with the airplane trimmed as indicated, the characteristics of the elevator control forces and the friction within the control system must be as follows:

    (a) A pull must be required to obtain and maintain speeds below the specified trim speed and a push required to obtain and maintain speeds above the specified trim speed. This must be shown at any speed that can be obtained, except that speeds requiring a control force in excess of 40 pounds or speeds above the maximum allowable speed or below the minimum speed for steady unstalled flight need not be considered.

    (b) The stick force or position must vary with speed so any substantial speed change results in a stick force or position clearly perceptible to the pilot.

    b. In place of 14 CFR 23.177, “Static directional and lateral stability,” comply with the following: SC23.177 Static Directional and Lateral Stability

    (a) The static directional stability, as shown by the tendency to recover from a wings level sideslip with the rudder free, must be positive for any landing gear and flap position appropriate to the takeoff, climb, cruise, approach, and landing configurations. This must be shown with symmetrical power up to maximum continuous power and at speeds from 1.2 VS1 to VO (maximum operating maneuvering speed); the rudder pedal force must not reverse.

    (b) In straight, steady slips at 1.2 VS1 for any landing gear and flap positions and for any symmetrical power conditions up to 50 percent of maximum continuous power, the rudder control movements and forces must increase steadily—but not necessarily in constant proportion—as the angle of sideslip is increased is increased up to the maximum appropriate for the type of airplane. The aileron control movements and forces may increase steadily, but not necessarily in constant proportion, as the angle of sideslip is increased up to the maximum appropriate for the type of airplane. At larger slip angles, up to the angle at which full rudder or aileron control is used or a control force limit contained in 14 CFR 23.143 is reached, the aileron and rudder control movements and forces must not reverse as the angle of sideslip is increased. Rapid entry into—and recovery from—a maximum sideslip considered appropriate for the airplane must not result in uncontrollable flight characteristics.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 26, 2017. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13991 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 33 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0586; Notice No. 33-17-01-SC] Special Conditions: Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for the Safran Aircraft Engines (SAE), Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. This engine will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with an additional takeoff rating that increases the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) limit to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed 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:

    Send your comments on or before July 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2017-0586] 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 of 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 8 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

    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 the Docket Operations Room in 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:

    Tara Fitzgerald, ANE-112, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5213; telephone (781) 238-7130; facsimile (781) 238-7199; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    Certification of the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model is currently scheduled for August 2018. The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and public comment procedure. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's certification of the engine, we are shortening the public comment period to end on July 6, 2017.

    We invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposed special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this special condition, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as SAE, applied for a type certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. On April 30, 2014, SAE requested an extension to their original type certificate application, which the FAA granted through June 30, 2015. On May 26, 2015, SAE requested another extension to their type certificate application, which the FAA granted through September 30, 2018.

    SAE proposed an additional takeoff rating to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions with all engines operating (AEO) for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. Therefore, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model would have two different takeoff ratings. The first rating corresponds with the rated takeoff thrust of the engine. The second takeoff rating maintains the takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions. This additional takeoff rating is named “Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated TOTHAT). The Rated TOTHAT is an approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation for a maximum usage of 20 minutes in any one flight.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, SAE must show that the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 33, as amended by Amendments 33-1 through 33-34 in effect on the date of application.

    If the FAA finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model, 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 or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to complying with the applicable product airworthiness regulations and the requirements of the special conditions, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model must comply with the fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34.

    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 § 21.17(a)(2).

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, referred to as “Rated TOTHAT”. This additional takeoff rating increases the EGT limit to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight.

    Discussion

    The Rated TOTHAT is designed for use during takeoff in specified high altitudes and high ambient temperature conditions to maintain thrust during takeoff for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight. These proposed special conditions contain additional mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance action requirements associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT. These requirements add a rating definition in part 1.1 and mandate mandatory inspections in the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA); instructions for installing and operating the engine; engine rating and operating limitations; instrument connection; and endurance testing.

    The current requirements of the endurance test under § 33.87 represent a typical airplane flight profile and the severity of the takeoff rating. Therefore, the endurance test under § 33.87 covers normal, all-engines-operating takeoff conditions for which the engine control system limits the engine to the takeoff thrust rating. It is intended to represent the airplane flight profile during takeoff under specified ambient temperatures for a time until the mandatory inspection and maintenance actions can be performed.

    These proposed special conditions require additional test cycles that include at least a 150 hours of engine operation as specified in § 33.87(a), to demonstrate the engine is capable of performing the Rated TOTHAT rating during AEO conditions without disassembly or modification.

    The associated engine deterioration, after use of the Rated TOTHAT, is not known without the intervening mandatory inspections in these special conditions. These mandatory inspections ensure the engine will continue to comply with its certification basis, which includes these proposed special conditions, after any use of the Rated TOTHAT. The applicant is expected to assess the deterioration from use of the Rated TOTHAT. The airworthiness limitations section (ALS) must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT.

    These requirements maintain a level of safety equivalent to the level intended by the applicable airworthiness standards in effect on the date of application.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. Should SAE apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only the Rated TOTHAT features on the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. It is not a rule of general applicability and applies only to SAE, who requested FAA approval of this engine feature.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Engines, 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, and 44704.

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the FAA proposes, the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model.

    1. Part 1 Definition

    “Rated Take-off Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation. Use is limited to two periods, no longer than 10 minutes each under one engine inoperative (OEI) conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance actions.

    2. Part 33 Requirements

    In addition to the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR part 33, effective February 1, 1965, amendments 33-1 through 33-34 applicable to the engine and the Rated TOTHAT, the following special conditions apply:

    (a) Section 33.4, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

    (1) The ALS must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT.

    (2) The applicant must validate the adequacy of the inspections and maintenance actions required under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.

    (3) The applicant must establish an in-service engine evaluation program to ensure the continued adequacy of the instructions for mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions prescribed under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions, and of the data for thrust assurance procedures required by paragraph 2(b)(2) of these special conditions. The program must include service engine tests or equivalent service engine test experience on engines of similar design and evaluations of service usage of the Rated TOTHAT.

    (b) Section 33.5, Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.

    (1) Installation Instructions:

    (i) The applicant must identify the means, or provisions for means, provided in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2(e) of these special conditions.

    (ii) The applicant must specify that the engine thrust control system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the Rated TOTHAT level when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures.

    (iii) The applicant must specify that the Rated TOTHAT is available by manual crew selection at specified altitudes and temperatures in AEO conditions.

    (2) Operating Instructions: The applicant must provide data on engine performance characteristics and variability to enable the airplane manufacturer to establish airplane thrust assurance procedures.

    (c) Section 33.7, Engine ratings and operating limitations.

    (1) Rated TOTHAT and the associated operating limitations are established as follows:

    (i) The thrust is the same as the engine takeoff rated thrust with extended flat rating corner point.

    (ii) The rotational speed limits are the same as those associated with the engine takeoff rated thrust.

    (iii) The applicant must establish a gas temperature steady-state limit and, if necessary, a transient gas over temperature limit for which the duration is no longer than 30 seconds.

    (iv) The use is limited to two periods of no longer than 10 minutes each under OEI conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight, for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspections and maintenance actions prescribed by paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.

    (2) The applicant must propose language to include in the type certificate data sheet specified in § 21.41 for the following:

    (i) Rated TOTHAT and associated limitations.

    (ii) As required by § 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include a note stating that “Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature (Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine. Use is limited to two periods, no longer than 10 minutes each under OEI conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight, for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance actions.”

    (iii) As required by § 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include a note stating that the engine thrust control system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the Rated TOTHAT level when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures, and the Rated TOTHAT is available by manual selection when all engines are operational during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures.

    (d) Section 33.28, Engine Control Systems.

    The engine must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic availability and automatic control of the Rated TOTHAT under OEI conditions and must permit manual activation of the Rated TOTHAT under AEO conditions.

    (e) Section 33.29, Instrument connection.

    The engine must:

    (1) Have means, or provisions for means, to alert the pilot when the Rated TOTHAT is in use, when the event begins and when the time interval expires.

    (2) Have means, or provision for means, which cannot be reset in flight, to:

    (i) Automatically record each use and duration of the Rated TOTHAT, and

    (ii) Alert maintenance personnel that the engine has been operated at the Rated TOTHAT and permit retrieval of recorded data.

    (3) Have means, or provision for means, to enable routine verification of the proper operation of the means in paragraph 2(e)(1) and (e)(2) of these special conditions.

    (f) Section 33.85(b), Calibration tests.

    The applicant must base the calibration test on the thrust check at the end of the endurance test required by § 33.87 of these special conditions.

    (g) Section 33.87, Endurance test.

    (1) In addition to the applicable requirements of § 33.87(a):

    (i) The § 33.87 endurance test must be modified as follows:

    (A) Modify the thirty minute test cycle at the rated takeoff thrust in § 33.87(b)(2)(ii) to run one minute at rated takeoff thrust, followed by five minutes at the Rated TOTHAT, followed by the rated takeoff thrust for the remaining twenty-four minutes.

    (B) The modified thirty minute period described above in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i)(A) must be repeated ten times in cycles 16 through 25 of the § 33.87 endurance test.

    (2) After completion of the tests required by § 33.87(b), as modified in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i) above, and without intervening disassembly, except as needed to replace those parts described as consumables in the ICA, the applicant must conduct the following test sequence for a total time of not less than 120 minutes:

    (i) Ten minutes at Rated TOTHAT.

    (ii) Eighty-eight minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.

    (iii) One minute at 50 percent of rated takeoff thrust.

    (iv) Ten minutes at Rated TOTHAT.

    (v) Ten minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.

    (vi) One minute at flight idle.

    (3) The test sequence of § 33.87(b)(1) through (6) of these special conditions must be run continuously. If a stop occurs during these tests, the interrupted sequence must be repeated unless the applicant shows that the severity of the test would not be reduced if the current tests were continued.

    (4) Where the engine characteristics are such that acceleration to the Rated TOTHAT results in a transient over temperature in excess of the steady-state temperature limit identified in paragraph 2(c)(1)(iii) of these special conditions, the transient gas overtemperature must be applied to each acceleration to the Rated TOTHAT of the test sequence in paragraph 2(g)(2) of these special conditions.

    (h) Section 33.93, Teardown inspection.

    The applicant must perform the teardown inspection required by § 33.93(a), after completing the endurance test prescribed by § 33.87 of these special conditions.

    (i) Section 33.201, Design and test requirements for Early ETOPS eligibility.

    In addition to the requirements of § 33.201(c)(1), the simulated ETOPS mission cyclic endurance test must include two cycles of 10 minute duration, each at the Rated TOTHAT; one before the last diversion cycle and one at the end of the ETOPS test.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 13, 2017. Carlos A. Pestana, Acting Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-14043 Filed 6-29-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0659; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-014-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rockwell Collins, Inc. Traffic Surveillance System Processing Unit AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rockwell Collins, Inc. TSS-4100 Traffic Surveillance System Processing Units that incorporate TSSA-4100 Field Loadable Software (FLS) Rockwell Collins part numbers 810-0052-002/-003/-010/-011/-012/-100/-101 and are installed on airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by five instances of air traffic control observing coasting (extrapolated stale data) of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data (position/velocity data). This proposed AD would require installing the TSSA-4100 FLS upgrades on the TSS-4100 units. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Rockwell Collins, Inc., Collins Aviation Services, 400 Collins Road NE., M/S 164-100, Cedar Rapids, IA 52498-0001; telephone: 888-265-5467 (U.S.) or 319-265-5467; fax: 319-295-4941 (outside U.S.); email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.rockwellcollins.com/Services_and_Support/Publications.aspx. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2017-0659; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Rau, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316-946-4149; fax: 316-946-4107; email: [email protected]

    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-2017-0659; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-014-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We were notified of five instances of air traffic control observing coasting (extrapolated stale data) automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data (ADS-B position/velocity data) on a related Rockwell Collins, Inc. platform that shares a common architecture with the TSS-4100 Traffic Surveillance System Processing Units, Rockwell Collins part number (RCPN) 822-2132-001, that are installed on airplanes. The affected units incorporate TSSA-4100 Field Loadable Software (FLS) RCPNs 810-0052-002/-003/-010/-011/-012/-100/-101. An investigation of the events determined that the ADS-B position and the Mode S/traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) altitude of the TSS-4100 are affected. The extrapolation of the data occurs with no warning to the crew.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in misleading position and/or altitude being reported by the airplane. Misleading altitude data can adversely affect TCAS and possibly lead to mid-air collision due to an incorrect initial resolution advisory (RA) and/or an incorrect RA modification.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA-4100-SIL-10-1, Revision No. 9, dated March 31, 2017. The service letter describes procedures for determining the part number of the affected FLS and the installation procedure for updating the FLS. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require updating the TSSA-4100 FLS on the TSS-4100 Traffic Surveillance System Processing Unit.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,000 products installed on 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
    Upgrade the FLS to RCPN 810-0052-013 or 810-0052-102 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $700 $785 $785,000

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive. Rockwell Collins, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0659; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-014-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 17, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    Rockwell Collins, Inc. TSS-4100 Traffic Surveillance System Processing Units, Rockwell Collins part number (RCPN) 822-2132-001, that incorporate TSSA-4100 Field Loadable Software (FLS) RCPN 810-0052-002/-003/-010/-011/-012/-100/-101; that are installed on but not limited to the airplanes listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (14) of this AD and are certificated in any category.

    (1) Cessna Citation CJ4 (525C) (2) Bombardier Challenger 300 (BD-100-1A10) (3) Bombardier Challenger 350 (BD-100-1A10) (4) Bombardier Challenger 605 (CL-600-2B16) (5) Bombardier Challenger 650 (CL-600-2B16) (6) Bombardier CRJ-700 (CL-600-2C10) (7) Bombardier CRJ-900 (CL-600-2D24) (8) Bombardier CRJ-1000 (CL-600-2E25) (9) Bombardier Global 5000 (BD-700-1A11) (10) Bombardier Global 5000V (BD-700-1A11) (11) Bombardier Global 6000 (BD-700-1A10) (12) Embraer Legacy (EMB-550) (13) Embraer Legacy 450 (EMB-545) (14) Gulfstream G280. (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by five instances of air traffic control observing coasting (extrapolated stale data) automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data (ADS-B position/velocity data). We are issuing this AD to prevent erroneous extrapolation of position/velocity and altitude data that could result in misleading position and/or altitude being reported by the airplane and possibly lead to mid-air collision.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Upgrade of FLS

    Within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD or within the next 750 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, upgrade the TSSA-4100 FLS to RCPN 810-0052-013 or 810-0052-102, as applicable, following Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA-4100-SIL-10-1, Revision No. 9, dated March 31, 2017.

    (h) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

    This AD allows credit for the action required in paragraph (g) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following either Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA-4100-SIL-10-1, Revision No. 6, dated September 19, 2016; Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA-4100-SIL-10-1, Revision No. 7, dated November 21, 2016; or Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA-4100-SIL-10-1, Revision No. 8, dated January 4, 2017, provided the TSSA-4100 FLS is upgraded to RCPN 810-0052-013 or 810-0052-102, as applicable.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Rau, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316-946-4149; fax: 316-946-4107; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rockwell Collins, Inc., Collins Aviation Services, 400 Collins Road NE., M/S 164-100, Cedar Rapids, IA 52498-0001; telephone: 888-265-5467 (U.S.) or 319-265-5467; fax: 319-295-4941 (outside U.S.); email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.rockwellcollins.com/Services_and_Support/Publications.aspx. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 26, 2017. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13948 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0144; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-2] Proposed Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5602A and R-5602B; Fort Sill, OK AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish two restricted areas, R-5602A and R-5602B, over a portion of the Fort Sill, OK, R-5601 restricted area complex in support of an emerging kinetic and directed energy weapons training requirement for the United States (U.S.) Army Fires Center of Excellence at Fort Sill. This additional airspace would allow for the segregation of hazardous activities from non-participating traffic.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0144 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    Comments on environmental and land use aspects should be directed to: U.S. Army Garrison, Directorate of Public Works, Attn: IMSI-PWE (Sarah Sminkey), Environmental Quality Division, Fort Sill, OK 73503-5100; email: [email protected]; phone: (580) 442-2849.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish the restricted area airspace at Fort Sill, OK, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Army hazardous above-the-horizon laser operations conducting counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) activities.

    Comments Invited

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

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0144 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0144 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person at the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Background

    As the U.S. Army's Center of Excellence for Fires, Fort Sill has submitted a proposal to the FAA to establish two restricted areas overlying a portion of the Fort Sill R-5601 restricted area complex, and extending slightly eastward, to support an emerging kinetic and directed energy weapons training mission. The designated altitudes of the proposed restricted areas would extend upward from 40,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to 60,000 feet MSL.

    Fort Sill has long been the U.S. Army's schoolhouse for traditional field artillery training and it has now been tasked to field advanced technology weapons, and train soldiers in their use for both field artillery and air defense artillery missions. Railguns, hypervelocity projectiles, and lasers being introduced at Fort Sill represent a technological leap in capability, and require additional high altitude segregated airspace to contain the hazardous activities and protect non-participating air traffic from those hazardous activities.

    The primary activities associated with the proposed R-5602A would include high trajectory surface-to-surface kinetic weapons employment using existing firing points and impact areas, with occasional laser fires passing through R-5601 complex restricted area airspace and the proposed R-5602A before entering the proposed R-5602B restricted area. The proposed R-5602B would be established solely to contain directed energy laser fires intended to destroy adversary UAS. Target UAS would only operate in the lower R-5601 restricted areas since the proposed R-5602A and R-5602B restricted areas would not be approved for aviation activity. For directed energy laser fires that extend beyond the ceiling of the proposed R-5602B restricted area, Fort Sill would follow existing interagency procedures to ensure protection of both manned aircraft and space assets operating above 60,000 feet MSL.

    To leverage advanced technology weapons capabilities for training soldiers in emerging field artillery and air defense artillery missions, Fort Sill requires additional restricted area airspace. Through extensive safety analysis, the U.S. Army has determined that the volume of restricted area airspace proposed in R-5602A and R-5602B is the minimum amount required to contain the planned hazardous activities and protect non-participant air traffic in the area.

    Minimal aeronautical impact is anticipated since the proposed restricted areas would be located above a portion of the existing R-5601 complex, which extends from the surface to 40,000 feet MSL, and the designated altitudes of the proposed restricted areas would extend upward from 40,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to establish two new restricted areas, R-5602A and R-5602B, overlying a portion of the R-5601 complex located at Fort Sill, OK. The new restricted areas would support the U.S. Army fielding advanced technology weapons and training for emerging field artillery and air defense artillery missions. To effectively segregate non-participant air traffic from the hazardous activities associated with the use of the advanced technology weapons at Fort Sill, the proposed R-5602A and R-5602B restricted areas would extend upward from 40,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL and be activated by a Notice to Airman (NOTAM).

    The proposed lateral boundaries for R-5602A would overlie and extend upward over the ceilings of the R-5601A, R-5601B, and a portion of R-5601F restricted areas. The proposed lateral boundaries for R-5602B would extend a shelf of restricted area airspace approximately 8 nautical miles (NM) east beyond the R-5601A and R-5601F eastern boundaries. Collectively, the proposed R-5602A and R-5602B restricted areas and the existing R-5601 complex would fully contain planned hazardous activities within restricted area airspace from the surface to 60,000 feet MSL. Existing interagency procedures would be followed to further segregate hazardous activities from manned aircraft and space assets operating above 60,000 feet MSL.

    The proposed designated altitudes for the proposed R-5602A and R-5602B restricted areas would extend upward from 40,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL. The altitudes are defined relative to MSL to highlight that the proposed area would be used for other than aircraft operations. From an air traffic perspective, establishing the proposed restricted areas for other than aircraft operations reduces the radar separation requirements for circumnavigating the proposed restricted areas and contributes to minimizing impacts to aviation.

    The proposed time of designation for the proposed R-5602A and R-5602B restricted areas would be, “By NOTAM 0830-1630, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM.” The expected usage for the proposed R-5602A would be approximately 8 hours per day on most weekdays, consistent with in-garrison syllabus training. However, the expected usage for the proposed R-5602B would be much lower to approximately 25 days per year. Due to the heavy dependence on favorable weather and unpredictability of seasonal weather patterns, NOTAM activation is considered an operational necessity for both proposed restricted areas.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 73.56 Oklahoma (Amended)
    2. § 73.56 is amended as follows: R-5602A Fort Sill, OK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34°46′45″ N., long. 98°17′01″ W.; to lat. 34°38′15″ N., long. 98°17′01″ W.; to lat. 34°38′15″ N., long. 98°37′57″ W.; to lat. 34°40′54″ N., long. 98°37′56″ W.; to lat. 34°42′07″ N., long. 98°37′20″ W.; to lat. 34°43′21″ N., long. 98°36′02″ W.; to lat. 34°43′30″ N., long. 98°35′40″ W.; to lat. 34°45′03″ N., long. 98°29′46″ W.; to lat. 34°46′15″ N., long. 98°25′01″ W.; to lat. 34°47′00″ N., long. 98°17′46″ W.; to the point of beginning.

    Designated altitudes. 40,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. By NOTAM 0830-1630, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM.

    Controlling agency. FAA, Fort Worth ARTCC.

    Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK.

    R-5602B Fort Sill, OK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34°49′30″ N., long. 98°08′43″ W.; to lat. 34°36′36″ N., long. 98°08′43″ W.; to lat. 34°38′15″ N., long. 98°17′01″ W.; to lat. 34°46′06″ N., long. 98°17′01″ W.; to the point of beginning.

    Designated altitudes. 40,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. By NOTAM 0830-1630, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM.

    Controlling agency. FAA, Fort Worth ARTCC.

    Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2017. Rodger A. Dean Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13990 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection 19 CFR Part 101 [Docket No. USCBP-2017-0017] Extension of Port Limits of Savannah, GA AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to extend the geographical limits of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia. The proposed extension will make the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public and will allow for uniform and continuous service to the extended area of Savannah, Georgia. The proposed change is part of CBP's continuing program to use its personnel, facilities, and resources more efficiently and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit comments, identified by docket number, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number USCBP-2017-0017.

    Mail: Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. 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. Submitted comments may be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roger Kaplan, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 325-4543, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.

    II. Background

    As part of its continuing efforts to use CBP's personnel, facilities, and resources more efficiently, and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public, CBP is proposing to extend the limits of the Savannah, Georgia port of entry. The CBP ports of entry are locations where CBP officers and employees are assigned to accept entries of merchandise, clear passengers, collect duties, and enforce the various provisions of customs, immigration, agriculture, and related U.S. laws at the border. The term “port of entry” is used in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in title 8 for immigration purposes and in title 19 for customs purposes. For immigration purposes, Savannah, Georgia port of entry is classified as a Class A port in District 26 under 8 CFR 100.4(a).1 For customs purposes, CBP regulations list designated CBP ports of entry and the limits of each port in 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1).

    1 Ports of entry for immigration purposes are currently listed at 8 CFR 100.4.

    Savannah, Georgia was designated as a customs port of entry by the President's message of March 3, 1913, concerning a reorganization of the U.S. Customs Service pursuant to the Act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 434; 19 U.S.C. 1). Executive Order 8367, dated March 5, 1940, established specific geographical boundaries for the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia.

    The current boundaries of the Savannah port of entry begin at the intersection of US Highway 17 and Little Back River on the line between South Carolina and Georgia; thence in a general southeasterly direction through the Little Back River, Back River, Savannah River and South Channel to the mouth of St. Augustine Creek, a distance of 11.6 miles; thence in a straight line in a southwesterly direction to the intersection of Moore Avenue and DeRenne Avenue, a distance of 5.8 miles; thence in a straight line in a westerly direction to the intersection of Middle Ground Road and DeRenne Avenue, a distance of 2.7 miles; thence in a straight line in a westerly direction to the intersection of Garrard Avenue and Ogeechee Road, a distance of 2.4 miles; thence in a straight line in a northwesterly direction to the intersection of Louisville Road and Bourne Avenue, a distance of 6.2 miles; thence in a straight line in a northeasterly direction to the intersection of Augusta Road and Augustine Creek, a distance of 4.8 miles; thence in a general easterly direction along Augustine Creek to the Savannah River, a distance of 2.4 miles; thence in a straight line in an easterly direction to the Chatham County line on Coastal Highway and Little Back River (the point of the beginning), a distance of 1.4 miles. CBP has included a map of the current port limits in the docket as “Attachment: Port of Entry of Savannah (blue lines).”

    Travel modes, trade volume, and transportation infrastructure have expanded greatly since 1940. For example, much of Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport is located beyond the current port limits, including the site of the proposed replacement Federal Inspection Service facility for arriving international travelers. Similarly, distribution centers and cold storage agricultural facilities that support the seaport are located outside existing port limits. As a result, the greater Savannah area's trade and travel communities do not know with certainty if they will be able to receive CBP services if they build facilities on the region's remaining undeveloped properties, almost all outside the boundaries of the port of entry.

    To address these concerns regarding the geographic limits of the port, CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) to extend the boundaries of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia, to include the majority of Chatham County, Georgia, as well as a small portion of Jasper County, South Carolina. The update will also provide uniform and continuous service to the extended area of Savannah, Georgia, and respond to the needs of the trade and travel communities. Further, the extension of the boundaries will include all of Savannah-Hilton Head Airport, the distribution centers and cold storage agricultural facilities, as well as the site of the proposed replacement Federal Inspection Service facility for arriving international travelers, and any other projected new facilities. However, the proposed change in the boundaries of the port of Savannah, Georgia, will not result in a change in the service that is provided to the public by the port and will not require a change in the staffing or workload at the port.

    III. Proposed Port Limits of Savannah, Georgia

    The new port limits of Savannah, Georgia, are proposed as follows:

    From 32°14.588′ N.—081°08.455′ W. (where Federal Interstate Highway 95 crosses the South Carolina-Georgia state line) and extending in a straight line to 32°04.903′ N.—080°04.998′ W. (where Walls Cut meets Wright River and Turtle Island); then proceeding in a straight line to 31°52.651′ N.—081°03.331′ W. (where Adams Creek meets Green Island South); then proceeding northwest in a straight line to 32°00.280′ N.—081°17.00′ W. (where Highway 204 intersects Federal Interstate Highway 95); then proceeding along the length of Federal Interstate Highway 95 to the point of beginning at the state line. CBP has included a map of the proposed port limits in the docket as “Attachment: Port of Entry of Savannah (red lines).”

    IV. Inapplicability of Notice and Public Procedure Requirements

    CBP routinely establishes, expands, and consolidates ports of entry throughout the United States to accommodate the volume of CBP-related activity in various parts of the country. This proposed amendment is not subject to the notice and public procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 because it relates to agency management and organization (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) and 553(b)(3)(A)). Notwithstanding the above, CBP generally provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the establishment, expansion and consolidation of ports of entry.

    V. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 13771

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

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 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 “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017).

    The proposed change is intended to expand the geographical boundaries of the Savannah, Georgia, port of entry, and make the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public. There are no new costs to the public associated with this rule.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people).

    This proposed rule merely expands the limits of an existing port of entry and does not impose any new costs on the public. Accordingly, we certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    D. Executive Order 13132

    The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

    E. Signing Authority

    The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) because the extension of port limits is not within the bounds of those regulations for which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained sole authority. Accordingly, this notice of proposed rulemaking may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or his delegate).

    VI. Authority

    This change is proposed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 101, et seq.; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624, 1646a.

    VII. Proposed Amendment to the Regulations

    If the proposed port limits for Savannah, Georgia, are adopted, CBP will amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) as necessary to reflect the new port limits.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Elaine C. Duke, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13983 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0014; FRL-9964-33-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky through its Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC) on November 10, 2016, for the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District). This SIP revision seeks to remove Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities and allow for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment in Jefferson County, Kentucky. EPA has preliminarily determined that Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0014 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is (404) 562-9222. She can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background for Federal Stage II Requirements

    Stage I vapor recovery is a type of emission control system that captures gasoline vapors that are released when gasoline is delivered to a storage tank. The vapors are returned to the tank truck as the storage tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released to the ambient air. Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) are two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II systems are specifically installed at gasoline dispensing facilities and capture the refueling fuel vapors at the gasoline pump nozzle. The system carries the vapors back to the underground storage tank at the gasoline dispensing facility to prevent the vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. ORVR systems are carbon canisters installed directly on automobiles to capture the fuel vapors evacuated from the gasoline tank before they reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors captured in the carbon canisters are then combusted in the engine when the automobile is in operation.

    Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, each state was required to submit a SIP revision to implement Stage II for all ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, primarily for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC)—a precursor to ozone formation.1 However, section 202(a)(6) of the CAA states that the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas shall not apply after the promulgation of ORVR standards.2 ORVR standards were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994. See 59 FR 16262 and 40 CFR parts 86, 88, and 600. As a result, the CAA no longer requires moderate areas to impose Stage II controls under section 182(b)(3), and such areas were able to submit SIP revisions, in compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA, to remove Stage II requirements from their SIPs. EPA's policy memoranda related to ORVR, dated March 9, 1993, and June 23, 1993, provide further guidance on removing Stage II requirements from certain areas. The policy memorandum dated March 9, 1993, states that “[w]hen onboard rules are promulgated, a State may withdraw its Stage II rules for moderate areas from the SIP (or from consideration as a SIP revision) consistent with its obligations under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act.” 3

    1 Section 182(b)(3) states that each State in which all or part of an ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate or above shall, with respect to that area, submit a SIP revision requiring owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate vapor recovery equipment at their facilities. Specifically, the CAA specifies that the Stage II requirements must apply to any facility that dispenses more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month or, in the case of an independent small business marketer (ISBM), as defined in section 324 of the CAA, any facility that dispenses more than 50,000 gallons of gasoline per month. Additionally, the CAA specifies the deadlines by which certain facilities must comply with the Stage II requirements. For facilities that are not owned or operated by an ISBM, these deadlines, calculated from the time of State adoption of the Stage II requirements, are: (1) 6 months for facilities for which construction began after November 15, 1990, (2) 1 year for facilities that dispense greater than 100,000 gallons of gasoline per month, and (3) by November 15, 1994, for all other facilities. For ISBMs, section 324(a) of the CAA provides the following three-year phase-in period: (1) 33 percent of the facilities owned by an ISBM by the end of the first year after the regulations take effect; (2) 66 percent of such facilities by the end of the second year; and (3) 100 percent of such facilities after the third year.

    2 ORVR is a system employed on gasoline-powered highway motor vehicles to capture gasoline vapors displaced from a vehicle fuel tank during refueling events. These systems are required under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, and implementation of these requirements began in the 1998 model year. Currently, they are used on all gasoline-powered passenger cars, light trucks and complete heavy trucks of less than 14,000 pounds GVWR. ORVR systems typically employ a liquid file neck seal to block vapor escape to the atmosphere and otherwise share many components with the vehicles' evaporative emission control system including the onboard diagnostic system sensors.

    3 Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air Directors, Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II Requirements in Moderate Areas (March 9, 1993), available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19930309_seitz_onboard_impact_stage2_.pdf.

    CAA section 202(a)(6) also provides discretionary authority to the EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas after the Administrator determines that ORVR is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. On May 16, 2012, in a rulemaking entitled “Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,” EPA determined that ORVR technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet for purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions. See 77 FR 28772. By that action, EPA waived the requirement for states to implement Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. Effective May 16, 2012, states implementing mandatory Stage II programs under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA were allowed to submit SIP revisions to remove this program. See 40 CFR 51.126(b).4 On April 7, 2012, EPA released the guidance entitled “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures” for states to consider in preparing their SIP revisions to remove existing Stage II programs from state implementation plans.5

    4 As noted above, EPA found, pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(6), that ORVR systems are in widespread use in the motor vehicle fleet and waived the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery requirement for serious and higher ozone nonattainment areas on May 16, 2012. Thus, in its implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA removed the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement from the list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o). See 80 FR 12264 for additional information.

    5 This guidance document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf.

    II. Kentucky's Stage II Requirements for Jefferson County

    On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified Jefferson County and portions for Bullitt and Oldham Counties in Kentucky (hereinafter referred to as the “Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area” or “Area”) as part of the five-county area in and around the Louisville, KY-IN, area as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.6 See 56 FR 56694, 56765. As mentioned above, the “moderate” classification triggered various statutory requirements for this Area, including the requirement pursuant to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA for the Area to require all owners and operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery of emissions from the fueling of motor vehicles known as “Stage II.” 7

    6 The other counties in this nonattainment area were Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana. See 56 FR 56755.

    7 As discussed above, Stage II is a system designed to capture displaced vapors that emerge from inside a vehicle's fuel tank when gasoline is dispensed into the tank. There are two basic types of Stage II systems, the balance type and the vacuum assist type.

    On March 4, 1993, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, on behalf of Jefferson County, submitted a SIP revision to address the Stage II requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. EPA approved that SIP revision, containing Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems), in a notice published on March 6, 1996. See 61 FR 8873. Louisville's Stage II rule, as currently incorporated into the SIP, requires that Stage II systems be tested and certified to meet a 95 percent emission reduction efficiency by using a system approved by the California Air Resources Board. The rule requires sources to verify proper installation and function of Stage II equipment through use of a liquid blockage test and a leak test prior to system operation and every five years or upon major modification of a facility (i.e., 75 percent or more equipment change). Louisville also established an inspection program consistent with that described in EPA's Stage II guidance and has established procedures for enforcing violations of the Stage II requirements.

    On March 30, 2001, Kentucky submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and an associated maintenance plan. The maintenance plan, as required under section 175A of the CAA, showed that nitrogen oxides and VOC emissions in the Area would remain below the 1999 “attainment year” levels through the greater than ten-year period from 1999-2012. In making these projections, Kentucky factored in the emissions benefit of the Area's Stage II program, thereby maintaining this program as an active part of its 1-hour ozone SIP. The redesignation request and maintenance plan were approved by EPA, effective November 23, 2001. See 66 FR 53665.

    Subsequently, Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham counties in Kentucky (or portions thereof) were designated nonattainment as a part of a larger bi-state nonattainment area which included Kentucky and Indiana counties in and around the Louisville Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.8 On July 5, 2007, the Area (i.e., the Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville Area) was redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 72 FR 36601.9 The Lousiville Area is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    8 No counties in and around the Louisville Area were designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    9 A technical amendment for the approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan was subsequently published on August 24, 2007. See 72 FR 48558.

    III. Analysis of the Commonwealth's Submittal

    On November 10, 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a revision for the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP to EPA seeking modifications of the Stage II requirements in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. Specifically, it seeks the removal of Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems) from the Kentucky SIP. These modifications would remove Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in the Louisville Area and allow for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment.

    EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's request is whether this requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA.10 Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis, considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated, but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.

    10 In addition to a 110(l) noninterference demonstration, CAA section 193 is a general savings clause that can prohibit removing a control measure entirely if it was adopted in a nonattainment area by order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the 1990 CAA amendments. Because Kentucky's Stage II rule was not included in the SIP before the 1990 CAA amendments, section 193 of the CAA does not apply.

    In its November 10, 2016, SIP revision, Kentucky used EPA's guidance entitled “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures” to conduct a series of calculations to determine the potential impact on air quality of removing the Stage II program.11 The 110(l) noninterference demonstration for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area focused on VOC emissions because, as mentioned above, Stage II requirements affect VOC emissions and because VOC emissions are a precursor for ozone formation. The results of Kentucky's analysis are provided in the table below.

    11 EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, EPA-457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-stage-two-vapor-recovery-rule-and-guidance. This guidance document notes that “the potential emission control losses from removing Stage II VRS are transitional and relatively small. ORVR-equipped vehicles will continue to phase in to the fleet over the coming years and will exceed 80 percent of all highway gasoline vehicles and 85 percent of all gasoline dispensed during 2015. As the number of these ORVR-equipped vehicles increase, the control attributed to Stage II VRS will decrease even further, and the potential foregone Stage II VOC emission reductions are generally expected to be no more than one percent of the VOC inventory in the area.”

    Table 1—VOC Emissions Difference Between Stage II VRS in Place and Removed Year VOC
  • emissions
  • (tons per day)
  • 2013 5.11 2014 3.10 2015 1.41 2016 0.06 2017 −1.21 2018 −2.24 2019 −3.11

    Table 1 shows that the removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area starting in 2017 would have resulted and will result in a VOC emission decrease. If instead Stage II requirements are kept in place, VOC emissions will decrease by less, and it will be less beneficial to air quality in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area to keep Stage II systems in operation.12

    12 The emissions-reduction disbenefit associated with continued implementation of Stage II requirements is due to the incompatibility of some Stage II and ORVR systems. Compatibility problems can result in an increase in emissions from the underground storage tank (UST) vent pipe and other system fugitive emissions related to the refueling of ORVR vehicles with some types of vacuum assist-type Stage II systems. This occurs during refueling an ORVR vehicle when the vacuum assist system draws fresh air into the UST rather than an air vapor mixture from the vehicle fuel tank. Vapor flow from the vehicle fuel tank is blocked by the liquid seal in the fill pipe which forms at a level deeper in the fill pipe than can be reached by the end of the nozzle spout. The fresh air drawn into the UST enhances gasoline evaporation in the UST which increases pressure in the UST. Unless it is lost as a fugitive emission, any tank pressure in excess of the rating of the pressure/vacuum valve is vented to the atmosphere over the course of a day. See EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, EPA-457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-stage-two-vapor-recovery-rule-and-guidance. Thus, as ORVR technology is phased in, the amount of emission control that is gained through Stage II systems decreases.

    The affected sources covered by the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area portion of Kentucky's Stage II vapor recovery requirements are sources of VOC. Other criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead) are not emitted by gasoline dispensing facilities and will not be affected by the removal of Stage II controls.

    The proposed revisions to Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems), include that gasoline dispensing facilities located in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area shall decommission and remove the systems no later than December 31, 2018. Kentucky noted in its submission that the decommissioning procedures in the revised version of Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems, follow Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) guidance, “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Refueling Sites,” PEI/RP300-09.

    EPA is proposing to determine that Kentucky's technical analysis is consistent with EPA's guidance on removing Stage II requirements from a SIP, including as it relates to the decommissioning and phasing out of the Stage II requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. EPA is also making the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP revision is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations related to removal of Stage II requirements from the SIP, and that these changes will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and therefore satisfy section 110(l).

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems), effective May 18, 2016. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP revision that changes the Louisville Area's Stage II rule, Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems), to allow for the removal of the Stage II requirement and the orderly decommissioning of Stage II equipment. EPA is proposing this approval because the Agency has made the preliminary determination that the Commonwealth of Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP revision related to the Louisville Area's Stage II rule is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations and guidance.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 15, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13858 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0265; FRL-9964-44-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of California regarding Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requirements for ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”). The SIP submission is intended to revise a portion of the State's “infrastructure” SIP that, more broadly, provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the standards. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0265 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Rory Mays at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Ozone Monitoring Evaluation and Proposed Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address structural SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP submission required by these provisions is referred to as the infrastructure SIP. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. This proposed rule pertains to infrastructure SIP requirements for ambient air quality monitoring.

    Each of the NAAQS revisions applicable to this proposed rule triggered the requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs, including provisions for ambient ozone monitoring. On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the form and levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards to an 8-hour average of 0.08 parts per million (ppm).1 On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 ppm.2 The EPA has issued guidance on infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone and other NAAQS that informs the states' development and the EPA's evaluation of ambient ozone monitoring.3

    1 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).

    2 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).

    3 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” September 13, 2013.

    Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires states to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitoring to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make data available to the EPA Administrator upon request. The EPA's implementing regulations for ambient monitoring regulations for the various NAAQS are found in 40 CFR part 58. Among the requirements for ozone monitoring, 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, 4.1(b) requires that “within an [ozone] network, at least one [ozone] site for each MSA, or [Combined Statistical Area (CSA)] if multiple MSAs are involved, must be designated to record the maximum concentration for that particular metropolitan area” and 40 CFR 58.14(b) requires that “modifications to the [State and Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS)] network for reasons other than those resulting from the periodic network assessments . . . must be reviewed and approved by the Regional Administrator.” The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS includes several MSAs and one CSA. Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley have occurred in the central and southern portions of the nonattainment area, but in recent years, the highest ozone concentrations have occurred in the central portion of the valley (i.e., within the Fresno CSA, which includes all of Fresno and Madera counties).

    California made SIP submissions in 2007 and 2014 to, among other things, address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA's implementing regulations for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA approved the submissions with respect to the ambient monitoring requirements with one exception: 4 we partially disapproved the submissions for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA, which includes all of Kern County. Our partial disapproval was based on the closure of the MSA's maximum ozone concentration site located at Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd. (Air Quality System (AQS) ID: 06-029-5001),5 without EPA approval of an alternative maximum ozone concentration site.

    4 81 FR 18766 at 18772 (April 1, 2016). See also, “California Infrastructure SIP, Overarching Technical Support Document,” EPA, Region IX, September 2014, pp. 11-15.

    5 The EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air pollution data collected by federal, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies from thousands of monitors. More information is available at: https://www.epa.gov/aqs.

    The EPA's partial disapproval for ambient ozone monitoring established a deadline of May 2, 2018, for the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) or for the State of California to submit, and the EPA to approve, an adequate SIP revision for this ozone monitoring deficiency for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.6 With respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA's partial disapproval explained that a prior FIP deadline of February 14, 2015, had been established by the EPA's 2013 finding that California and other states had failed to submit infrastructure SIPs for that NAAQS.7 Regarding a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, in May 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a partial consent decree directing the EPA to, among other things, sign a final rule approving a SIP revision, promulgate a FIP, or a combination thereof for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the Bakersfield MSA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2017.8 As discussed further in section II of this proposed rule, the EPA proposes that California has submitted a SIP revision that adequately resolves the underlying SIP deficiency with respect to monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    6 81 FR 18766 at 18775 (April 1, 2016).

    7 78 FR 2882 (January 15, 2013).

    8 Partial consent decree in Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 3:15-cv-04328-JD (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California), filed May 23, 2017, pp. 4-6.

    II. Ozone Monitoring Evaluation and Proposed Action

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the “Staff Report, [C]ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard” (“2016 CARB Staff Report”) on August 24, 2016.9 We found this submission to be complete on December 19, 2016.10 We are proposing action only on the portions of the submission that address ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B), and refer to those portions herein as the “2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP.” 11 We find that this submission meets the procedural requirements for public participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102.

    9 Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX, EPA, August 24, 2016.

    10 Letter from Elizabeth Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, Region IX, EPA to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, December 19, 2016.

    11 2016 CARB Staff Report, Section V.H (“Bakersfield Area Monitor”), p. 23 and Section VII (“Staff Recommendation”), p. 24.

    The 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP notes that states must meet federal monitoring regulations as part of the CAA infrastructure requirements and refers to the EPA's disapproval of the State's infrastructure SIP for ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA.12 CARB states that it had operated an ozone monitor at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd. site for 20 years and that this site had recorded the highest ozone concentrations in the Bakersfield MSA. Upon notification in 2009 that the site lease would not be renewed, CARB established a replacement site at Arvin's Di Giorgio elementary school (AQS ID: 06-029-5002). This ozone monitor site relocation had not been approved by the EPA at the time of the EPA's 2014 partial disapproval of California's 2007 and 2014 infrastructure SIPs. CARB states that the EPA has now approved the site relocation 13 and includes a copy of the letter as Appendix C to the 2016 CARB Staff Report.

    12Id.

    13 Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, Region IX, EPA to K. Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, May 2, 2016.

    We have reviewed the statements CARB made in its 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP, the EPA's 2016 approval letter, and CARB's 2016 site relocation request.14 Given the logistical constraints and factors considered by CARB, the EPA concluded that the Arvin Di Giorgio site provides the most similar concentrations from similar sources to the Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd. site and fulfilled the federal regulatory requirement that such replacement site be nearby and have the same scale of representation. In addition, we found that CARB's site relocation, as approved by the EPA consistent with 40 CFR 58.14, met the substantive requirements for site relocation under 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D, including the requirement under section 4.1(b) to designate a site to record the maximum ozone concentration in the Bakersfield MSA.

    14 Letter from K. Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB to Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, Region IX, EPA, April 29, 2016. This site relocation request noted that the Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd. monitor operated for the 21 years and that the highest ozone concentrations in the Bakersfield MSA generally occurred at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd. site or the neighboring Edison site (AQS ID 060290007). The ozone monitor at the Edison site continues to operate.

    Since the underlying basis of the EPA's 2014 disapproval has been adequately resolved (i.e., approved site relocation for the maximum ozone concentration site in the Bakersfield MSA), we propose to approve the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this preamble.

    In addition, the EPA previously approved an ozone emergency episode plan from El Dorado County APCD as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS.15 That action resolved a separate, partial disapproval from the EPA's 2016 rulemaking on California's 2007 and 2014 infrastructure SIPs. However, we inadvertently did not remove certain paragraphs from the California SIP that reflected the earlier disapproval. Thus, as an administrative matter, we intend to use this rulemaking to remove the obsolete paragraphs, specifically 40 CFR 52.223(i)(7) and 40 CFR 52.223(l)(7), from the California SIP.

    15 81 FR 47300 (July 21, 2016).

    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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13860 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0166; FRL-9964-34-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; FL: Revisions to New Source Review, Definitions and Small Business Assistance Programs AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve changes to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) to update definitions and make administrative edits to regulations for the Plantwide Applicability Limits and Florida's Small Business Assistance program. EPA is proposing to approve portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on July 1, 2011, to update definitions and make administrative edits to Plantwide Applicability Limits and the Small Business Assistance program. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0166 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's implementation plan revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: June 15, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13861 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0025; FRL-9964-23-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLC AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. The revision consists of a reasonably available control technology approval for a volatile organic compound emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0025 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100 (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator,EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13906 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 126 Monday, July 3, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 28, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by August 2, 2017. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Regulations for Voluntary Grading, Certification, and Standards—7 CFR part 54, 56, 62 and 70.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0128.

    Summary of Collection: The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 1087-1091, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) (AMA) directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide consumers with voluntary Federal grading and certification services that facilitate the marketing of agricultural commodities. The Quality Assessment Division (QAD) provides these services under the authority of 7 CFR parts 54, 56, and 70. The regulations provide a voluntary program for grading and certification services based on U.S. standards, grades, and weight classes to enable orderly marketing of the corresponding agricultural products. The regulation in 7 CFR part 62, Quality Systems Verification Programs (QSVP) is a collection of voluntary, audit-based, user-fee fund programs that allow applicants to have program documentation and program processes assessed by AMS auditor(s) and other USDA officials. This program is made available to respondents who would need to request or apply for the specific service they wish on a user fee-for-service basis.

    AMS merged the Poultry Programs with the Livestock and Seed Program and it is now the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed (LPS) Program. With this renewal all PY forms will be changed to LPS.

    Need and Use of the Information: Using forms LPS-109 (formerly PY-32), LPS-110 (formerly PY-100), LPS-157, LPS-240P, LPS-240S, LPS-210P, LPS-210S, LPS-234 and LPS-518-1, information is collected only from respondents who elect to utilize this voluntary user fee-for-service. Only authorized representatives of the USDA use the information collected. The information is used to administer, conduct and carry out the grading services requested by the respondents. If the information were not collected, the agency would not be able to provide the voluntary grading services authorized and requested by Congress, provide the types of services requested by industry, administer the program, ensure properly grade-labeled products, calculate the cost of the service or collect for the cost furnishing service.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit, Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 1,564.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion; Semi-annually; Monthly; Annually; Other (daily).

    Total Burden Hours: 10,785.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Generic Information Collection and Clearance of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0269.

    Summary of Collection: Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. Improving Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) programs requires ongoing assessment of service delivery, by which we mean systematic review of the operation of a program compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the continuous improvement of the program.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between AMS and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit Institutions and State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 100,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 50,000.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13976 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Essex, Illinois, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on December 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Kankakee Grain Inspection, Inc. (Kankakee).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Jacob Thein, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]

    Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation Kankakee

    Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Illinois is assigned to this official agency.

    In Illinois

    Bounded on the north by the northern Bureau County line; the northern LaSalle and Grundy County lines; the northern Will County line east-southeast to Interstate 57; bounded on the east by Interstate 57 south to U.S. Route 52; U.S. Route 52 south to the Kankakee County line; bounded on the south by the southern Kankakee and Grundy County lines; the southern LaSalle County line west to State Route 17; State Route 17 west to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 north to State Route 18; State Route 18 west to State Route 26; State Route 26 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 south to Interstate 74; Interstate 74 west to the western Peoria County line; and bounded on the west by the western Peoria and Stark County lines; the northern Stark County line east to State Route 40; State Route 40 north to the Bureau County line.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Illinois is for the period beginning January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Kankakee official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13878 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Designation for the Owensboro, Kentucky; Bloomington, Illinois; Sioux City, Iowa; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Plainview, Texas, Areas AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    GIPSA is announcing the designations of J.W. Barton Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Barton); Central Illinois Grain Inspection, Inc. (Central Illinois); Sioux City Inspection and Weighing Service Company (Sioux City); Northern Plains Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Northern Plains) and Plainview Grain Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc. (Plainview) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.

    DATES:

    Effective April 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Thein, (816) 866-2223, [email protected] or [email protected]

    Read Applications: All applications and comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the March 22, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 14676-14679), GIPSA requested applications for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas presently serviced by Barton, Central Illinois, Sioux City, Northern Plains, and Plainview. Applications were due by April 21, 2017.

    The current official agencies, Barton, Central Illinois, Sioux City, Northern Plains, and Plainview, were the only applicants for designation to provide official services in these areas. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.

    GIPSA evaluated the designation criteria in section 7(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Barton, Central Illinois, Sioux City, Northern Plains, and Plainview are qualified to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the Federal Register on March 22, 2017. These designations to provide official services in the specified areas of Barton, Central Illinois, Sioux City, Northern Plains, and Plainview are effective April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022.

    Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting this agency at the following telephone number:

    Official agency Headquarters location and telephone Designation
  • start
  • Designation
  • end
  • Barton Owensboro, KY, 270-683-0616 4/1/2017 3/31/2022 Central Illinois Bloomington, IL, 309-827-7121 4/1/2017 3/31/2022 Sioux City Sioux City, IA, 712-255-8073 4/1/2017 3/31/2022 Northern Plains Grand Forks, ND, 701-772-2414 4/1/2017 3/31/2022 Plainview Plainview, TX, 806-293-1364 4/1/2017 3/31/2022

    Section 7(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)).

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13877 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Savage, Minnesota, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on December 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: State Grain Inspection, Inc. (State Grain).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this Notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Sharon Lathrop, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]

    Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, (816) 891-0415 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation State Grain

    Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Minnesota is assigned to this official agency.

    In Minnesota

    Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Carver, Scott, Dakota, Brown, Nicollet, Le Sueur, Rice, Goodhue, Watonwan, Blue Earth, Waseca, Steele, Dodge, McLeod, and Sibley Counties.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Minnesota is for the period beginning January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the State Grain official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13876 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Washington Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on December 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Washington Department of Agriculture (Washington).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this Notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Sharon Lathrop, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]

    Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, (816) 891-0415 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation Washington

    Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic areas in the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington are assigned to this official agency.

    In Idaho

    The northern half of the State of Idaho down to the northern boundaries of Adams, Valley, and Lemhi Counties.

    In Oregon

    The entire State of Oregon, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.

    In Washington

    The entire State of Washington, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by Washington.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington is for the period beginning January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Washington official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13879 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Notice of Intent To Certify Washington State Department of Agriculture (Washington); Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by this Delegated State: Washington State Department of Agriculture (Washington).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Sharon Lathrop, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]da.gov or [email protected]

    Read Comments: All comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, (816) 891-0415, [email protected] or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(e)(2)(A) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) designates that if the Secretary determines, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 79(e), that a State agency is qualified to perform official inspection, meets the criteria in subsection (f)(1)(A) of Section 79, and (i) was performing official inspection at an export port location under this chapter on July 1, 1976, or (ii)(I) performed official inspection at an export port location at any time prior to July 1, 1976, (II) was designated under subsection (f) of Section 79 on December 22, 1982, to perform official inspections at locations other than export port locations, and (III) operates in a State from which total annual exports do not exceed, as determined by the Secretary, five per centum of the total amount of grain exported from the United States annually, the Secretary may delegate authority to the State agency to perform all or specified functions involving official inspection (other than appeal inspection) at export port locations within the State, including export port locations which may in the future be established, subject to such rules, regulations, instructions, and oversight as the Secretary may prescribe, and any such official inspection shall continue to be the direct responsibility of the Secretary. Any such delegation may be revoked by the Secretary, at the discretion of the Secretary, at any time upon notice to the State agency without opportunity for a hearing. Under Section 79(e) of the USGSA, every 5 years, the Secretary shall certify that each State agency with a delegation of authority is meeting the criteria described in subsection (f)(1)(A). Delegations shall be renewed according to the criteria and procedures set forth in Section 79(e)(2)(B) of the USGSA.

    Area of Delegation Washington

    Pursuant to Section 79(e)(2) of the USGSA, the following export port locations in the State of Washington are assigned to this State agency.

    In Washington

    All export port locations in the State of Washington.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the State of Washington. We are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the delegation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider comments and other available information when determining certification.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13880 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Alabama Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on December 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (Alabama).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by August 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this Notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Jacob Thein, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]

    Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation State of Alabama

    Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Alabama is assigned to this official agency.

    In Alabama

    The entire State, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by Alabama.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Alabama is for the period beginning January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Alabama official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13873 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-42-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 122—Corpus Christi, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; voestalpine Texas, LLC; (Hot Briquetted Iron and By-Products); Portland, Texas

    The Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of voestalpine Texas, LLC (voestalpine), located in Portland, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 12, 2017.

    voestalpine already has authority to produce hot briquetted iron (HBI) and related by-products using certain foreign-status materials within Subzone 122T. The current request would add a finished product and foreign-status materials to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt voestalpine from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials used in export production. On its domestic sales, voestalpine would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to HBI fines (duty-free) for the foreign-status materials noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The materials/components sourced from abroad include direct reduction iron remet and HBI fines (duty-free).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 14, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13943 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-88-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone 127—West Columbia, South Carolina; Application for Subzone; BGM America, Inc.; Marion, South Carolina

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Richland-Lexington Airport District, grantee of FTZ 127, requesting subzone status for the facility of BGM America, Inc., located in Marion, South Carolina. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on June 13, 2017.

    The proposed subzone would consist of the following site: 1313 West Highway 76, Marion (40 acres). No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 127.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 14, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 28, 2017.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at [email protected] or (202) 482-5928.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13944 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-44-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 265—Conroe, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bauer Manufacturing LLC dba NEORig (Stationary Oil/Gas Drilling Rigs); Conroe, Texas

    The City of Conroe, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Bauer Manufacturing LLC dba NEORig (Bauer), located in Conroe, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 5, 2017.

    Bauer already has authority to produce pile drivers and leads, boring machinery, foundation construction equipment, foundation casings and related parts and sub-assemblies, tools and accessories for pile drivers, and stationary oil/gas drilling rigs and related subassemblies within Site 1 of FTZ 265. The current request would add a foreign status material/component to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status material/component described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Bauer from customs duty payments on the foreign-status material/component used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status material/component noted below Bauer would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the company's finished products previously approved by the FTZ Board (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5%). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The material/component sourced from abroad is: Hydraulic roughneck (duty-free).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 14, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13945 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on July 25, 2017, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

    Agenda Public Session 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Remarks From the Bureau of Industry and Security Management 3. Industry Presentations 4. New Business Closed Session 5. Discussion of Matters Determined to be Exempt From the Provisions Relating to Public Meetings Found in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3)

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than July 18, 2017.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 12, 2017 pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13870 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on August 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.

    Agenda

    Open Session:

    1. Opening remarks and introductions.

    2. Presentation of papers and comments by the Public.

    3. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.

    4. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.

    5. Other business.

    Closed Session:

    6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than August 1, 2017.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13874 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard a/k/a Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Mahmoud Amini, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    and

    P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    and

    Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Kerman Aviation a/k/a GIE Kerman Aviation, 42 Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France Sirjanco Trading LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Ali Eslamian, 33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, London, W1G0PW, United Kingdom

    and

    2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, St. Johns Wood, London NW87RY, United Kingdom Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates Skyco (UK) Ltd., 33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, London, W1G 0PV, United Kingdom Equipco (UK) Ltd., 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, London, NW8 7RY, United Kingdom Mehdi Bahrami, Mahan Airways—Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey Al Naser Airlines a/k/a al-Naser Airlines a/k/a Alnaser Airlines and Air Freight Ltd., Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq

    and

    Al Amirat Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20, Al Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq

    and

    P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    and

    P.O. Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan Ali Abdullah Alhay, a/k/a Ali Alhay, a/k/a Ali Abdullah Ahmed Alhay, Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq

    and

    Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia 61177 Bahar Safwa General Trading, P.O. Box 113212, Citadel Tower, Floor-5, Office #504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    and

    P.O. Box 8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Sky Blue Bird Group a/k/a Sky Blue Bird Aviation a/k/a Sky Blue Bird Ltd a/k/a Sky Blue Bird FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah Trade Zone, United Arab Emirates Issam Shammout a/k/a Muhammad Isam Muhammad Anwar Nur Shammout a/k/a Issam Anwar, Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous Street, Damascus, Syria

    and

    Al Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515

    and

    17-18 Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W 8RP, United Kingdom

    and

    Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar Sok. No. 14/A Silivri, Istanbul, Turkey

    Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”),1 I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) to renew the December 30, 2016 Temporary Denial Order (the “TDO”). The December 30, 2016 Order denied the export privileges of Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar Safwa General Trading, Sky Blue Bird Group, and Issam Shammout.2 I find that renewal of the TDO is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.

    1 The Regulations, currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017), originally issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979. Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,58748,223 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    2 See note 3, infra.

    I. Procedural History

    On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (“Assistant Secretary”), signed a TDO denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The TDO also named as denied persons Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (“Blue Airways of Armenia”), as well as the “Balli Group Respondents,” namely, Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to Section 766.24(a), and went into effect on March 21, 2008, the date it was published in the Federal Register.

    The TDO subsequently has been renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d), including most recently on December 30, 2016.3 As of March 9, 2010, the Balli Group Respondents and Blue Airways were no longer subject to the TDO. As part of the February 25, 2011 TDO renewal, Gatewick LLC (a/k/a Gatewick Freight and Cargo Services, a/k/a Gatewick Aviation Services), Mahmoud Amini, and Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard (“Kosarian Fard”) were added as related persons in accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations.4 On July 1, 2011, the TDO was modified by adding Zarand Aviation as a respondent in order to prevent an imminent violation.5 As part of the August 24, 2011 renewal, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, and Ali Eslamian were added to the TDO as related persons. Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., and Equipco (UK) Ltd. were added as related persons on April 9, 2012. Mehdi Bahrami was added to the TDO as a related person as part of the February 4, 2013 renewal order.

    3 The December 30, 2016 Order was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2312). July 13, 2016 (81 FR 45276). The TDO previously had been renewed on September 17, 2008, March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009, March 9, 2010, September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, February 15, 2012, August 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, July 31, 2013, January 24, 2014, July 22, 2014, January 16, 2015, July 13, 2015, January 7, 2016, July 7, 2016, and December 30, 2016. The August 24, 2011 renewal followed the modification of the TDO on July 1, 2011, which added Zarand Aviation as a respondent. The July 13, 2015 renewal followed the modification of the TDO on May 21, 2015, which added Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. Each renewal or modification order was published in the Federal Register.

    4 On August 13, 2014, BIS and Gatewick LLC resolved administrative charges against Gatewick, including a charge for acting contrary to the terms of a BIS denial order (15 CFR 764.2(k)). In addition to the payment of a civil penalty, the settlement includes a seven-year denial order. The first two years of the denial period are active, with the remaining five years suspended on condition that Gatewick LLC pays the civil penalty in full and timely fashion and commits no further violation of the Regulations during the seven-year denial period. The Gatewick LLC Final Order was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2014. See 79 FR 49283 (Aug. 20, 2014).

    5 As of July 22, 2014, Zarand Aviation was no longer subject to the TDO.

    On May 21, 2015, the TDO was modified to add Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. Sky Blue Bird Group and its chief executive officer Issam Shammout were added to the TDO as related persons as part of the July 13, 2015 renewal order.6

    6 The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) designated Sky Blue Bird and Issam Shammout as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (“SDGTs”) on May 21, 2015, pursuant to Executive Order 13324, for “providing support to Iran's Mahan Air.” See 80 FR 30762 (May 29, 2015).

    On June 5, 2017, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO. The written request was made more than 20 days before the scheduled expiration of the current TDO, which issued on December 30, 2016. Notice of the renewal request also was provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to the renewal of the TDO has been received. Furthermore, no appeal of the related person determinations made as part of the September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, April 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, and July 13, 2015 renewal or modification orders has been made by Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, or Issam Shammout.7

    7 A party named or added as a related person may not oppose the issuance or renewal of the underlying temporary denial order, but may file an appeal of the related person determination in accordance with Section 766.23(c).

    II. Renewal of the TDO A. Legal Standard

    Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 776.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.” Id. As to the likelihood of future violations, BIS may show that the violation under investigation or charge “is significant, deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather than technical or negligent [.]” Id. A “lack of information establishing the precise time a violation may occur does not preclude a finding that a violation is imminent, so long as there is sufficient reason to believe the likelihood of a violation.” Id.

    B. The TDO and BIS's Request for Renewal

    OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the issuance of the initial TDO and the TDO renewals in this matter and the evidence developed over the course of this investigation indicating a blatant disregard of U.S. export controls and the TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a result of evidence that showed that Mahan Airways and other parties engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR by knowingly re-exporting to Iran three U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s (“Aircraft 1-3”), items subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 9A991.b, without the required U.S. Government authorization. Further evidence submitted by BIS indicated that Mahan Airways was involved in the attempted re-export of three additional U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (“Aircraft 4-6”) to Iran.

    As discussed in the September 17, 2008 renewal order, evidence presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1-3 continued to be flown on Mahan Airways' routes after issuance of the TDO, in violation of the Regulations and the TDO itself.8 It also showed that Aircraft 1-3 had been flown in further violation of the Regulations and the TDO on the routes of Iran Air, an Iranian Government airline. Moreover, as discussed in the March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010 Renewal Orders, Mahan Airways registered Aircraft 1-3 in Iran, obtained Iranian tail numbers for them (EP-MNA, EP-MNB, and EP-MNE, respectively), and continued to operate at least two of them in violation of the Regulations and the TDO,9 while also committing an additional knowing and willful violation when it negotiated for and acquired an additional U.S.-origin aircraft. The additional acquired aircraft was an MD-82 aircraft, which subsequently was painted in Mahan Airways' livery and flown on multiple Mahan Airways' routes under tail number TC-TUA.

    8 Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and (k).

    9 The third Boeing 747 appeared to have undergone significant service maintenance and may not have been operational at the time of the March 9, 2010 renewal order.

    The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order also noted that a court in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) had found Mahan Airways in contempt of court on February 1, 2010, for failing to comply with that court's December 21, 2009 and January 12, 2010 orders compelling Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing 747s from Iran and ground them in the Netherlands. Mahan Airways and the Balli Group Respondents had been litigating before the U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1-3. In a letter to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways' Chairman indicated, inter alia, that Mahan Airways opposes U.S. Government actions against Iran, that it continued to operate the aircraft on its routes in and out of Tehran (and had 158,000 “forward bookings” for these aircraft), and that it wished to continue to do so and would pay damages if required by that court, rather than ground the aircraft.

    The September 3, 2010 renewal order discussed the fact that Mahan Airways' violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin aircraft and attempting to acquire additional U.S.-origin aircraft. In February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways participated in the export of computer motherboards, items subject to the Regulations and designated as EAR99, from the United States to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), in violation of both the TDO and the Regulations, by transporting and/or forwarding the computer motherboards from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways' violations were facilitated by Gatewick LLC, which not only participated in the transaction, but also has stated to BIS that it acted as Mahan Airways' sole booking agent for cargo and freight forwarding services in the UAE.

    Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. court, Mahan Airways asserted that Aircraft 1-3 were not being used, but stated in pertinent part that the aircraft were being maintained in Iran especially “in an airworthy condition” and that, depending on the outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the aircraft “could immediately go back into service . . . on international routes into and out of Iran.” Mahan Airways' January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at p. 25, ¶¶ 108, 110. This clearly stated intent, both on its own and in conjunction with Mahan Airways' prior misconduct and statements, demonstrated the need to renew the TDO in order to prevent imminent future violations. Two of these three 747s subsequently were removed from Iran and are no longer in Mahan Airways' possession. The third of these 747s, with Manufacturer's Serial Number (“MSN”) 23480 and Iranian tail number EP-MNE, remained in Iran under Mahan's control. Pursuant to Executive Order 13324, it was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (“SDGT”) by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) on September 19, 2012.10 Furthermore, as discussed in the February 4, 2013 Order, open source information indicated that this 747, painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways, had been flown between Iran and Syria, and was suspected of ferrying weapons and/or other equipment to the Syrian Government from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Open source information showed that this aircraft had flown from Iran to Syria as recently as June 30, 2013, and continues to show that it remains in active operation in Mahan Airways' fleet.

    10See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/20120919.aspx.

    In addition, as first detailed in the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 orders, and discussed in subsequent renewal orders in this matter, Mahan Airways also continued to evade U.S. export control laws by operating two Airbus A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways' livery and logo, on flights into and out of Iran.11 At the time of the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 Orders, these Airbus A310s were registered in France, with tail numbers F-OJHH and F-OJHI, respectively.12

    11 The Airbus A310s are powered with U.S.-origin engines. The engines are subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control Classification (“ECCN”) 9A991.d. The Airbus A310s contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to the EAR. They are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or reexport of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.

    12 OEE subsequently presented evidence that after the August 24, 2011 renewal, Mahan Airways worked along with Kerman Aviation and others to de-register the two Airbus A310 aircraft in France and to register both aircraft in Iran (with, respectively, Iranian tail numbers EP-MHH and EP-MHI). It was determined subsequent to the February 15, 2012 renewal order that the registration switch for these A310s was cancelled and that Mahan Airways then continued to fly the aircraft under the original French tail numbers (F-OJHH and F-OJHI, respectively). Both aircraft apparently remain in Mahan Airways' possession.

    The August 2012 renewal order also found that Mahan Airways had acquired another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to the Regulations, with MSN 499 and Iranian tail number EP-VIP, in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.13 On September 19, 2012, all three Airbus A310 aircraft (tail numbers F-OJHH, F-OJHI, and EP-VIP) were designated as SDGTs.14

    13 See note 12, supra.

    14See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/20120919.aspx. Mahan Airways was previously designated by OFAC as a SDGT on October 18, 2011. 77 FR 64,427 (October 18, 2011).

    The February 4, 2013 Order laid out further evidence of continued and additional efforts by Mahan Airways and other persons acting in concert with Mahan, including Kral Aviation and another Turkish company, to procure U.S.-origin engines—two GE CF6-50C2 engines, with MSNs 517621 and 517738, respectively—and other aircraft parts in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.15 The February 4, 2013 renewal order also added Mehdi Bahrami as a related person in accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations. Bahrami, a Mahan Vice-President and the head of Mahan's Istanbul Office, also was involved in Mahan's acquisition of the original three Boeing 747s (Aircraft 1-3) that resulted in the original TDO, and has had a business relationship with Mahan dating back to 1997.

    15 Kral Aviation was referenced in the February 4, 2013 Order as “Turkish Company No. 1.” Kral Aviation purchased a GE CF6-50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 517621) from the United States in July 2012, on behalf of Mahan Airways. OEE was able to prevent this engine from reaching Mahan by issuing a redelivery order to the freight forwarder in accordance with Section 758.8 of the Regulations. OEE also issued Kral Aviation a redelivery order for the second CF6-50C2 engine (MSN 517738) on July 30, 2012. The owner of the second engine subsequently cancelled the item's sale to Kral Aviation. In September 2012, OEE was alerted by a U.S. exporter that another Turkish company (“Turkish Company No. 2”) was attempting to purchase aircraft spare parts intended for re-export by Turkish Company No. 2 to Mahan Airways. See February 4, 2013 Order.

    On December 31, 2013, Kral Aviation was added to BIS's Entity List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12, 2013). Companies and individuals are added to the Entity List for engaging in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. See 15 CFR 744.11.

    The July 31, 2013 Order detailed additional evidence obtained by OEE showing efforts by Mahan Airways to obtain another GE CF6-50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 528350) from the United States via Turkey. Multiple Mahan employees, including Mehdi Bahrami, were involved in or aware of matters related to the engine's arrival in Turkey from the United States, plans to visually inspect the engine, and prepare it for shipment from Turkey.

    Mahan sought to obtain this U.S.-origin engine through Pioneer Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik (“Pioneer Logistics”), an aircraft parts supplier located in Turkey, and its director/operator, Gulnihal Yegane, a Turkish national who previously had conducted Mahan related business with Mehdi Bahrami and Ali Eslamian. Moreover, as referenced in the July 31, 2013 Order, a sworn affidavit by Kosol Surinanda, also known as Kosol Surinandha, Managing Director of Mahan's General Sales Agent in Thailand, stated that the shares of Pioneer Logistics for which he was the listed owner were “actually the property of and owned by Mahan.” He further stated that he held “legal title to the shares until otherwise required by Mahan” but would “exercise the rights granted to [him] exactly and only as instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/or decisions [would] only and exclusively reflect the wills and demands of Mahan[.]” 16

    16 Pioneer Logistics, Gulnihal Yegane, and Kosol Surinanda also were added to the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12, 2013).

    The January 24, 2014 Order outlined OEE's continued investigation of Mahan Airways' activities and detailed an attempt by Mahan, which OEE thwarted, to obtain, via an Indonesian aircraft parts supplier, two U.S.-origin Honeywell ALF-502R-5 aircraft engines (MSNs LF5660 and LF5325), items subject to the Regulations, from a U.S. company located in Texas. An invoice of the Indonesian aircraft parts supplier dated March 27, 2013, listed Mahan Airways as the purchaser of the engines and included a Mahan ship-to address. OEE also obtained a Mahan air waybill dated March 12, 2013, listing numerous U.S.-origin aircraft parts subject to the Regulations—including, among other items, a vertical navigation gyroscope, a transmitter, and a power control unit—being transported by Mahan from Turkey to Iran in violation of the TDO.

    The July 22, 2014 Order discussed open source evidence from the March-June 2014 time period regarding two BAE regional jets, items subject to the Regulations, that were painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP-MOK and EP-MOI, respectively. 17 In addition, aviation industry resources indicated that these aircraft were obtained by Mahan Airways in late November 2013 and June 2014, from Ukrainian Mediterranean Airline, a Ukrainian airline that was added to BIS's Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations) on August 15, 2011, for acting contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.18 OEE's on-going investigation indicates that both BAE regional jets remain active in Mahan's fleet, with open source information showing EP-MOI being used on flights into and out of Iran as recently as January 12, 2015. The continued operation of these aircraft by Mahan Airways violates the TDO.

    17 The BAE regional jets are powered with U.S.-origin engines. The engines are subject to the EAR and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. These aircraft contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to the EAR. They are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or reexport of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.

    18See 76 FR 50407 (Aug. 15, 2011). The July 22, 2014 TDO renewal order also referenced two Airbus A320 aircraft painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP-MMK and EP-MML, respectively. OEE's investigation also showed that Mahan obtained these aircraft in November 2013, from Khors Air Company, another Ukrainian airline that, like Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines, was added to BIS's Entity List on August 15, 2011. Open source evidence indicates the two Airbus A320 aircraft may be been transferred by Mahan Airways to another Iranian airline in October 2014, and issued Iranian tail numbers EP-APE and EP-APF, respectively.

    The January 16, 2015 Order detailed evidence of additional attempts by Mahan Airways to acquire items subject the Regulations in further violation of the TDO. Specifically, in March 2014, OEE became aware of an inertial reference unit bearing serial number 1231 (“the IRU”) that had been sent to the United States for repair. The IRU is subject to the Regulations, classified under ECCN 7A103, and controlled for missile technology reasons. Upon closer inspection, it was determined that IRU came from or had been installed on an Airbus A340 aircraft bearing MSN 056. Further investigation revealed that as of approximately February 2014, this aircraft was registered under Iranian tail number EP-MMB and had been painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways.

    The January 16, 2015 Order also described related efforts by the Departments of Justice and Treasury to further thwart Mahan's illicit procurement efforts. Specifically, on August 14, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland filed a civil forfeiture complaint for the IRU pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(b) that resulted in the court issuing an Order of Forfeiture on December 2, 2014. EP-MMB remains listed as active in Mahan Airways' fleet.

    Additionally, on August 29, 2014, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of Asian Aviation Logistics of Thailand, a Mahan Airways affiliate or front company, pursuant to Executive Order 13224. In doing so, OFAC described Mahan Airways' use of Asian Aviation Logistics to evade sanctions by making payments on behalf of Mahan for the purchase of engines and other equipment.19

    19 See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20140829.aspx. See 79 FR 55073 (Sep. 15, 2014). OFAC also blocked the property and property interests of Pioneer Logistics of Turkey on August 29, 2014. Id. Mahan Airways' use of Pioneer Logistics in an effort to evade the TDO and the Regulations was discussed in a prior renewal order, as summarized, supra, at 13-14. BIS added both Asian Aviation Logistics and Pioneer Logistics to the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12, 2013).

    The May 21, 2015 modification order detailed the acquisition of two aircraft, specifically an Airbus A340 bearing MSN 164 and an Airbus A321 bearing MSN 550, that were purchased by Al Naser Airlines in late 2014/early 2015 and are currently located in Iran under the possession, control, and/or ownership of Mahan Airways.20 The sales agreements for these two aircraft were signed by Ali Abdullah Alhay for Al Naser Airlines.21 Payment information reveals that multiple electronic funds transfers (“EFT”) were made by Ali Abdullah Alhay and Bahar Safwa General Trading in order to acquire MSNs 164 and 550.

    20 Both of these aircraft are powered by U.S.-origin engines that are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. Both aircraft contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to the EAR regardless of their location. The aircraft are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.

    21 Ali Abdullah Alhay is a 25% owner of Al Naser Airlines.

    The May 21, 2015 modification order also laid out evidence showing the respondents' attempts to obtain other controlled aircraft, including aircraft physically located in the United States in similarly-patterned transactions during the same recent time period. Transactional documents involving two Airbus A320s bearing MSNs 82 and 99, respectively, again showed Ali Abdullah Alhay signing sales agreements for Al Naser Airlines.22 A review of the payment information for these aircraft similarly revealed EFTs from Ali Abdullah Alhay and Bahar Safwa General Trading that follow the pattern described for MSNs 164 and 550, supra. MSNs 82 and 99 were detained by OEE Special Agents prior to their planned export from the United States.

    22 Both aircraft were physically located in the United States and therefore are subject to the Regulations pursuant to Section 734.3(a)(1). Moreover, these Airbus A320s are powered by U.S.-origin engines that are subject to the Regulations and classified under Export Control Classification Number ECCN 9A991.d. The Airbus A320s contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to the EAR regardless of their location. The aircraft are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.

    The July 13, 2015 Order outlined evidence showing that Al Naser Airlines' attempts to acquire aircraft on behalf of Mahan Airways extended beyond MSNs 164 and 550 to include a total of nine aircraft.23 Four of the aircraft, all of which are subject to the Regulations and were obtained by Mahan from Al Naser Airlines, had been issued the following Iranian tail numbers: EP-MMD (MSN 164), EP-MMG (MSN 383), EP-MMH (MSN 391) and EP-MMR (MSN 416), respectively.24 Publicly available flight tracking information provided evidence that at the time of the July 13, 2015 renewal, both EP-MMH and EP-MMR were being actively flown on routes into and out of Iran in violation of the TDO and Regulations.25

    23 This evidence included a press release dated May 9, 2015, that appeared on Mahan Airways' Web site and stated that Mahan “added 9 modern aircraft to its air fleet [,]” and that the newly acquired aircraft included eight Airbus A340s and one Airbus A321. See http://www.mahan.aero/en/mahan-air/press-room/44. The press release was subsequently removed from Mahan Airways' Web site. Publicly available aviation databases similarly showed that Mahan had obtained nine additional aircraft from Al Naser Airlines in May 2015, including MSNs 164 and 550. As also discussed in the July 13, 2015 renewal order, Sky Blue Bird Group, via Issam Shammout, was actively involved in Al Naser Airlines' acquisition of MSNs 164 and 550, and the attempted acquisition of MSNs 82 and 99 (which were detained by OEE).

    24 The Airbus A340s are powered by U.S.-origin engines that are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. The Airbus A340s contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to the EAR regardless of their location. The aircraft are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.

    25 There is some publicly available information indicating that the aircraft Mahan Airways is flying under Iranian tail number EP-MMR is now MSN 615, rather than MSN 416. Both aircraft are Airbus A340 aircraft that Mahan acquired from Al Naser Airlines in violation of the TDO and the Regulations. Moreover, both aircraft were designated as SDGTs by OFAC on May 21, 2015, pursuant to Executive Order 13324. See 80 FR 30762 (May 29, 2015).

    The January 7, 2016 Order discussed evidence that Mahan Airways had begun actively flying EP-MMD, another of the aircraft Mahan had obtained from Al Naser Airlines (as discussed in the July 13, 2015 renewal order), on international routes into and out of Iran, including from/to Bangkok, Thailand. Additionally, the January 7, 2016 Order described publicly available aviation database and flight tracking information indicating that Mahan Airways was continuing its efforts to acquire Iranian tail numbers and press into active service under Mahan's livery and logo at least two more of the Airbus A340 aircraft it had obtained from or through Al Naser Airlines: EP-MME (MSN 371) and EP-MMF (MSN 376), respectively. Since January 2016, EP-MME has logged flights to and from Tehran, Iran involving various destinations, including Guangzhou, China, and Dubai, United Arab Emirates in further violation of the TDO and the Regulations.

    The July 7, 2016 Order described Mahan Airways' acquisition of a BAE Avro RJ-85 aircraft (MSN E2392) in violation of the TDO and its subsequent registration under Iranian tail number EP-MOR.26 This information was corroborated by publicly available information on the Web site of Iran's civil aviation authority. The July 7, 2016 Order also outlined Mahan's continued operation of EP-MMF in violation of the TDO on routes from Tehran Iran to Beijing, China and Shanghai, China, respectively.

    26 The BAE Avro RJ-85 is powered by U.S.-origin engines that are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. The BAE Avro RJ-85 contains controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a result is subject to the EAR regardless of its location. The aircraft is classified under ECCN 9A991.b, and its export or re-export to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.

    The December 30, 2016 Order outlined Mahan's continued operation of multiple Airbus aircraft, including EP-MMD (MSN 164), EP-MMF (MSN 376), and EP-MMH (MSN 391), which were acquired from or through Al Naser Airlines in violation of the TDO as previously detailed in the July 13, 2015 and January 7, 2016 renewal orders, respectively. Publicly available flight tracking information showed that the aircraft were operated on flights into and out of Iran, including from/to Beijing, China, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Istanbul, Turkey.27

    27 Specifically, on December 22, 2016, EP-MMD (MSN 164) flew from Dubai, UAE to Tehran, Iran. Between December 20 and December 22, 2016, EP-MMF (MSN 376) flew on routes from Tehran, Iran to Beijing, China and Istanbul, Turkey, respectively. Between December 26 and December 28, 2016, EP-MMH (MSN 391) flew on routes from Tehran, Iran to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

    OEE's June 5, 2017 renewal request includes similar evidence regarding Mahan's continuing violation of the TDO by operating multiple Airbus aircraft subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to, aircraft procured from or through Al Naser Airlines, on flights into and out of Iran, including from/to Moscow, Russia, Shanghai, China and Kabul, Afghanistan.28

    28 Publicly available flight tracking information shows that on June 22, 2017, EP-MME (MSN 371) flew from Moscow, Russia to Tehran, Iran. Additionally, between June 19, 2017, and June 20, 2017, EP-MMQ (MSN 449), an Airbus A430 also obtained from or through Al Naser Airlines, flew on routes between Shanghai, China and Tehran, Iran. Similar flight tracking information shows that on June 20, 2017, EP-MNK (MSN 618), an Airbus A300 originally acquired by Mahan via a Ukrainian company, flew between Kabul, Afghanistan and Mashhad, Iran.

    OEE has also obtained additional information regarding the suspected diversion of an Airbus A340 that was first mentioned in its December 13, 2016 renewal request. This aircraft had been located and registered in the United States under tail number N278TA and was subject to the Regulations. At the time the December 30, 2016 renewal order was issued, this aircraft had been exported from the United States to Indonesia contrary to filings made with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). These filings with the FAA inaccurately indicated, first, that the aircraft was being flown to Almaty, Kazakhstan, and then indicated that the aircraft should be de-registered in the United States because it was being exported to, and going to be registered in, Ukraine. Additional documents obtained by OEE included a copy of the sales agreement relating to this aircraft, which listed a UAE company as the purchaser. Moreover, an industry database indicated that the aircraft was being transferred or sold to Mahan Airways. After multiple attempts by OEE to contact the UAE company regarding OEE's concerns about any sale or other diversion to Mahan Airways, the same industry database was revised so as to indicate that the sale/transfer to Mahan had been cancelled. The timing of this revision is suspicious. Moreover, as discussed in prior renewal orders, Mahan Airways has used a broad network of agents and affiliates to unlawfully procure and attempt to procure aircraft and other items subject to the Regulations via third countries and sham or masked transactions, including via the UAE and Indonesia.

    C. Findings

    Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the Regulations and my review of the entire record, I find that the evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that the denied persons have acted in violation of the Regulations and the TDO; that such violations have been significant, deliberate and covert; and that given the foregoing and the nature of the matters under investigation, there is a likelihood of future violations. Therefore, renewal of the TDO is necessary to prevent imminent violation of the Regulations and to give notice to companies and individuals in the United States and abroad that they should continue to cease dealing with Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, and the other denied persons under the TDO in connection with export and reexport transactions involving items subject to the Regulations.

    IV. Order

    It is therefore ordered:

    First, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; PEJMAN MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/A KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; MAHMOUD AMINI, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; KERMAN AVIATION A/K/A GIE KERMAN AVIATION, 42 Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France; SIRJANCO TRADING LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; ALI ESLAMIAN, 33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, London W1G0PW, United Kingdom, and 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road St. Johns Wood, London NW87RY, United Kingdom; MAHAN AIR GENERAL TRADING LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates; SKYCO (UK) LTD., 33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, London, W1G 0PV, United Kingdom; EQUIPCO (UK) LTD., 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, London, NW8 7RY, United Kingdom; and MEHDI BAHRAMI, Mahan Airways- Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey; AL NASER AIRLINES A/K/A AL-NASER AIRLINES A/K/A ALNASER AIRLINES AND AIR FREIGHT LTD., Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq, and Al Amirat Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20, Al Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq, and P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan; ALI ABDULLAH ALHAY A/K/A ALI ALHAY A/K/A ALI ABDULLAH AHMED ALHAY, Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq, and Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia 61177; BAHAR SAFWA GENERAL TRADING, P.O. Box 113212, Citadel Tower, Floor-5, Office #504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; SKY BLUE BIRD GROUP A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD AVIATION A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD LTD A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah Trade Zone, United Arab Emirates; and ISSAM SHAMMOUT A/K/A MUHAMMAD ISAM MUHAMMAD ANWAR NUR SHAMMOUT A/K/A ISSAM ANWAR, Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous Street, Damascus, Syria, and Al Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515, and 17-18 Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W 8RP, United Kingdom, and Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar Sok. No.14/A Silivri, Istanbul, Turkey, and when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or assigns, agents, or employees (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.

    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

    Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or Issam Shammout may, at any time, appeal their inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. A renewal request may be opposed by Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.

    A copy of this Order shall be provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading and each related person, and shall be published in the Federal Register. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Richard R. Majauskas, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13972 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of the Materials Technical Advisory Committee

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on July 20, 2017, 10:00 a.m. (Mountain Daylight Time), at Sundyne, 14845 W. 64th Avenue, Arvada, CO 80007. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

    Agenda Open Session

    1. Introductions and opening remarks by Sundyne Senior Management. Remarks by Matthew Borman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

    2. FBI Special Agent Justin Maenius will present the economic espionage video “The Company Man” and discussion will follow.

    3. Handling large unit exports from Sundyne.

    4. Vestas and other presenters (UTAS).

    5. Report by individual members on their industry and working groups.

    6. Public Comments/New Business.

    Closed Session

    7. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sec. l0(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than July 13, 2017.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sec. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13869 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of the Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 6, 2017, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

    Agenda Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Status reports by working group chairs.

    3. Public comments and Proposals.

    Closed Session

    4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than August 30, 2017.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13875 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on July 20 and 21, 2017, 8:30 a.m. (Pacific Daylight Time), at the University of California, Berkeley, Toll Room, Alumni Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.

    Agenda Thursday, July 20 Closed Session Friday, July 21 Open Session

    1. Welcome Remarks & Update of ETRAC activities.

    • Status of Industry Sectors being reviewed by the ETRAC: Electronics & Graphene Circuits, Graphene metamaterials, Robotics and Big Data, Optoelectronics & Photonics, Additive Manufacturing, Advanced materials, Autonomous Technology, and Hypersonics.

    2. Export Control Issues and Research Being Conducted at the University of California-Berkeley.

    3. Update on Export Control Issues.

    4. Presentation by Jeff Welser, Vice President-IBM & Director of the Almaden Research Laboratory, San Jose, CA.

    • Current research on: Cognitive Computing, Quantum Computing, Nanobiotechnology, Carbon nanotubes, Computational materials science, Amorphous semiconductors, and Atomic storage.

    5. Comments from the Public.

    6. Review of current emerging technology issues.

    • Report on Tech Connect Conference and U.S.-European Scientific Research Collaboration Matchmaking event.

    Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C., App. 2, 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than, July 13, 2017.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters of which would be likely to frustrate significant implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C., App. 2, 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13872 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of Manuel Morales, Inmate Number: 45841-051, FCI Phoenix, 37910 N. 45th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85086.

    On June 1, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Manuel Morales (“Morales”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Morales was convicted of knowingly and intentionally combining, conspiring, confederating and agreeing with other persons, known and unknown, to export from the United States to Mexico defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, 540 rounds of 7.62 x 39 caliber ammunition and seven 7.62 x 39 caliber magazines, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Morales was sentenced to 50 months in prison with credit for time served, 36 months of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Morales's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Morales to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Morales.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Morales's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Morales's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Morales had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until June 1, 2026, Manuel Morales, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 45841-051, FCI Phoenix, 37910 N. 45th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85086, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Morales by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Morales may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Morales and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until June 1, 2026.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13969 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on July 26 and 27, 2017, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.

    Wednesday, July 26 Open Session 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Working Group Reports 3. Old Business 4. Industry Presentations: Quantum Computing 5. New business Thursday, July 27 Closed Session 6. Discussion of Matters Determined to be Exempt From the Provisions Relating to Public Meetings Found in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3)

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than July 19, 2017.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 27, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2, (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13871 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Edwin Navarro Makasiar II, Inmate Number: 47704-424, D. Ray James Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 2000, Folkston, GA 31437.

    On June 30, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Edwin Navarro Makasiar II (“Makasiar”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Makasiar was convicted of knowingly and willfully attempting to export from the United States to the Philippines defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, two Glock Model 23, .40 caliber pistols and approximately 2,500 rounds of .223 caliber and 5.56 mm ammunition, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Makasiar was sentenced to 60 months in prison, a $2,000 criminal fine, and a $200 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Makasiar's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Makasiar to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Makasiar.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Makasiar's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Makasiar's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Makasiar had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until June 30, 2025, Edwin Navarro Makasiar II, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 47704-424, D. Ray James Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 2000, Folkston, GA 31437, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Makasiar by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Makasiar may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Makasiar, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until June 30, 2025.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13971 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of: Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira, Inmate Number: 85048-379, FCI Big Spring, 1900 Simler Avenue, Big Spring, TX 79720.

    On May 23, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira was convicted of intentionally and knowingly conspiring and agreeing with other persons to knowingly and willfully export, and cause to be exported, from the United States to Mexico defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, 5.56 caliber rifles, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses.Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira was sentenced to 135 months in prison and a $200 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until May 23, 2021, Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 85048-379, FCI Big Spring, 1900 Simler Avenue, Big Spring, TX 79720, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until May 23, 2021.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13970 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (the Department) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of a review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to a review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete a Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of a proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after July 2017, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of July 2017,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in July for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings India: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products A-533-863 1/4/16-6/30/17 India: Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) Film A-533-824 7/1/16-6/30/17 Iran: In-Shell Pistachios A-507-502 7/1/16-6/30/17 Italy: Certain Pasta A-475-818 7/1/16-6/30/17 Italy: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products A-475-832 1/4/16-6/30/17 Japan: Clad Steel Plate A-588-838 7/1/16-6/30/17 Japan: Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products A-588-873 3/7/16-6/30/17 Japan: Polyvinyl Alcohol A-588-861 7/1/16-6/30/17 Japan: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-588-845 7/1/16-6/30/17 Malaysia: Steel Nails A-557-816 7/1/16-6/30/17 Malaysia: Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe A-557-815 7/1/16-6/30/17 Oman: Steel Nails A-523-808 7/1/16-6/30/17 Republic of Korea: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products A-580-878 1/4/16-6/30/17 Republic of Korea: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-580-834 7/1/16-6/30/17 Republic of Korea: Steel Nails A-580-874 7/1/16-6/30/17 Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Steel Nails A-552-818 7/1/16-6/30/17 Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe A-522-816 7/1/16-6/30/17 Taiwan: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products A-583-856 6/2/16-6/30/17 Taiwan: Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) Film A-583-837 7/1/16-6/30/17 Taiwan: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-583-831 7/1/16-6/30/17 Taiwan: Steel Nails A-583-854 7/1/16-6/30/17 Thailand: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings A-549-807 7/1/16-6/30/17 Thailand: Weld Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe A-549-830 7/1/16-6/30/17 The People's Republic of China: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings A-570-814 7/1/16-6/30/17 Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts A-570-962 7/1/16-6/30/17 Certain Steel Grating A-570-947 7/1/16-6/30/17 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe A-570-910 7/1/16-6/30/17 Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products A-570-029 3/7/16-6/30/17 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products A-570-026 1/4/16-6/30/17 Persulfates A-570-847 7/1/16-6/30/17 Xanthan Gum A-570-985 7/1/16-6/30/17 Turkey: Certain Pasta A-489-805 7/1/16-6/30/17 Countervailing Duty Proceedings India: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products C-533-864 11/6/15-12/31/16 India: Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) Film C-533-825 1/1/16-12/31/16 Italy: Certain Pasta C-475-819 1/1/16-12/31/16 Italy: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products C-475-833 11/6/15-12/31/16 Republic of Korea: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products C-580-879 11/6/15-12/31/16 Socialist of Republic of Vietnam: Steel Nails C-552-819 1/1/16-12/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts C-570-963 1/1/16-12/31/16 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe C-570-911 1/1/16-12/31/16 Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products C-570-030 12/22/15-12/31/16 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products C-570-027 11/6/15-12/31/16 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand C-570-946 1/1/16-12/31/16 Steel Grating C-570-948 1/1/16-12/31/16 Turkey: Certain Pasta C-489-806 1/1/16-12/31/16 Suspension Agreements Ukraine: Oil Country Tubular Goods A-823-815 7/1/16-6/30/17

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    The Department no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.3 Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.4 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity). Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    3See 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).

    4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 5 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    5See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of July 2017. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of July 2017, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13937 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 2015-2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand. The review covers 160 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. After analyzing the comments received, our final results remain unchanged from the preliminary results. Finally, we find that four companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

    DATES:

    Effective July 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Medley or Alice Maldonado, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987 and (202) 482-4682, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The review covers 160 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The respondents which the Department selected for individual examination are Mayao 1 and Thai Union/Pakfood.2 The respondents which were not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

    1 Mayao consists of the following companies: A Foods 1991 Co., Limited and May Ao Foods Co., Ltd.

    2 Thai Union/Pakfood consists of the following companies: Thai Union Group Public Co., Ltd. (also known as Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd.), Thai Union Seafood Company Limited, Pakfood Public Company Limited, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co. Ltd., Okeanos Co. Ltd., Okeanos Food Co. Ltd., and Takzin Samut Co. Ltd.

    On March 6, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 3 We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the review.4 In April 2017, we received a case brief from Mayao and certain of the individual companies comprising Thai Union/Pakfood (collectively, the respondents); 5 we also received a rebuttal brief from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner). The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    3See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments ; 2015-2016, 82 FR 12540 (March 6, 2017) (Preliminary Results).

    4Id.

    5 Thai Union/Pakfood's case brief was not filed on behalf of the following companies which are included in the Thai/Union/Pakfood collapsed entity: Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co. Ltd., Okeanos Food Co. Ltd., and Takzin Samut Co. Ltd.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.6 The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

    6 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,” (dated concurrently with these results) (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in the Issues and Decision memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received no shipment claims from five companies involved in this administrative review: Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Calsonic Kansei); Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Grobest); Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd. (Lucky Union); Marine Gold Products Ltd. (Marine Gold); and Thai Union Manufacturing Company Limited (Thai Union Manufacturing). In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that four of these companies (i.e., Calsonic Kansei, Lucky Union, Marine Gold, and Thai Union Manufacturing) had no reviewable transactions during the POR.7 We received no comments from interested parties with respect to these claims. Therefore, because the record indicates that these companies did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we continue to find that Calsonic Kansei, Lucky Union, Marine Gold, and Thai Union Manufacturing had no reviewable transactions during the POR.

    7See Preliminary Results, 82 FR at 12540.

    With respect to the remaining company (i.e., Grobest), in the Preliminary Results, we found insufficient evidence on the record to conclude that this company made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. As a result, we preliminarily included Grobest in the administrative review.8 Because we received no comments from interested parties with respect to this determination, we continue to include Grobest in this administrative review.

    8Id.

    Final Results of the Review

    We are assigning the following dumping margins to the respondents for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, as follows:

    9 On January 5, 2016, the Department found that Thai Union Group Public Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 81 FR 222 (January 5, 2016).

    Producer/exporter Dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • A Foods 1991 Co., Limited/May Ao Foods Co., Ltd 1.23 Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd 9/Thai Union Group Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd./Pakfood Public Company Limited/Okeanos Food Co., Ltd./Okeanos Co. Ltd./Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd.,/Chaophraya Cold Storage Co. Ltd./Takzin Samut Co. Ltd 0.51

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Non-Selected Companies: 10

    10 This rate is based on the rates for the respondents that were selected for individual review, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts available. See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

    Producer/exporter Dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd 0.81 A.P. Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 ACU Transport Co., Ltd 0.81 Ampai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd 0.81 Apex Maritime (Thailand) Co., Ltd 0.81 Apitoon Enterprise Industry Co., Ltd 0.81 Applied DB 0.81 Asian Seafood Coldstorage (Sriracha) 0.81 Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd./Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Limited/STC Foodpak Ltd 0.81 Assoc. Commercial Systems 0.81 B.S.A. Food Products Co., Ltd 0.81 Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd 0.81 C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd 0.81 C.P. Mdse 0.81 C.P. Merchandising Co., Ltd./Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd./Klang Co., Ltd./Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd./Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd 0.81 CP Retailing and Marketing Co., Ltd 0.81 C.P. Intertrade Co. Ltd 0.81 Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd (*) Century Industries Co., Ltd 0.81 Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd 0.81 Chaiwarut Company Limited 0.81 Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd 0.81 Charoen Pokphand Petrochemical Co., Ltd 0.81 Chonburi LC 0.81 Chue Eie Mong Eak 0.81 Commonwealth Trading Co., Ltd 0.81 Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd 0.81 C.P.F. Food Products Co., Ltd 0.81 Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Crystal Seafood 0.81 Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd 0.81 Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd 0.81 Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd 0.81 Dynamic Intertransport Co., Ltd 0.81 Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd 0.81 F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited 0.81 Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd 0.81 Fimex VN 0.81 Findus (Thailand) Ltd 0.81 Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd 0.81 Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd 0.81 Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd 0.81 Gallant Seafoods Corporation 0.81 Global Maharaja Co., Ltd 0.81 Golden Sea Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Golden Thai Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 0.81 Good Fortune Cold Storage Co. Ltd 0.81 Good Luck Product Co., Ltd 0.81 Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Gulf Coast Crab Intl 0.81 H.A.M. International Co., Ltd 0.81 Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd 0.81 Handy International (Thailand) Co., Ltd 0.81 Heng Seafood Limited Partnership 0.81 Heritrade 0.81 HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd 0.81 High Way International Co., Ltd 0.81 I.S.A. Value Co., Ltd 0.81 I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd 0.81 Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd 0.81 Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd 0.81 K & U Enterprise Co., Ltd 0.81 K Fresh 0.81 K. D. Trading Co., Ltd 0.81 K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd 0.81 KF Foods Ltd 0.81 Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd 0.81 Kibun Trdg 0.81 Kingfisher Holdings Ltd 0.81 Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand) Company, Ltd 0.81 Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd 0.81 Leo Transports 0.81 Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd (*) Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd 0.81 Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd 0.81 Mahachai Marine Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Marine Gold Products Ltd 11 (*) Merit Asia Foodstuff Co., Ltd 0.81 Merkur Co., Ltd 0.81 Ming Chao Ind Thailand 0.81 N&N Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 N.R. Instant Produce Co., Ltd 0.81 Namprik Maesri Ltd. Part 0.81 Narong Seafood Co., Ltd 0.81 Nongmon SMJ Products 0.81 Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Thai-Ger Marine Co., Ltd 0.81 Pacific Queen Co., Ltd 0.81 Pakpanang Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd 0.81 Penta Impex Co., Ltd 0.81 Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine 0.81 Piti Seafood Co., Ltd 0.81 Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd 0.81 Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd 0.81 Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd 0.81 Rayong Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd 0.81 S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd 0.81 S&P Aquarium 0.81 S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd 0.81 S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd 0.81 S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd. and/or S. Khonkaen Food Ind. Public 0.81 S.K. Foods (Thailand) Public Co. Limited 0.81 Samui Foods Company Limited 0.81 SB Inter Food Co., Ltd 0.81 SCT Co., Ltd 0.81 Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd 0.81 SEA NT'L CO., LTD 0.81 Seafresh Fisheries/Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd 0.81 Search and Serve 0.81 Sethachon Co., Ltd 0.81 Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd 0.81 Shing Fu Seaproducts Development Co 0.81 Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd 0.81 Siam Haitian Frozen Food Co., Ltd 0.81 Siam Intersea Co., Ltd 0.81 Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd 0.81 Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd 0.81 Siam Union Frozen Foods 0.81 Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd 0.81 Smile Heart Foods Co. Ltd 0.81 SMP Products, Co., Ltd 0.81 Southport Seafood Co., Ltd 0.81 Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Starfoods Industries Co., Ltd 0.81 Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd 0.81 Surapon Foodsblic Co., Ltd./Surat Seafoods Public Co., Ltd 0.81 Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd 0.81 Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd 0.81 T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd 0.81 Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd 0.81 Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd 0.81 Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd 0.81 Thai Hanjin Logistics Co., Ltd 0.81 Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd 0.81 Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd 0.81 Thai Patana Frozen 0.81 Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd 0.81 Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd 0.81 Thai Union Manufacturing Company Limited (*) Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd 0.81 Thai Yoo Ltd., Part 0.81 The Siam Union Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd./Bright Sea Co., Ltd 0.81 Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd 0.81 Transamut Food Co., Ltd 0.81 Tung Lieng Tradg 0.81 United Cold Storage Co., Ltd 0.81 UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company 0.81 V. Thai Food Product Co., Ltd 0.81 Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd 0.81 Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd 0.81 Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 0.81 ZAFCO TRDG 0.81 * No shipments or sales subject to this review.
    Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where Mayao and Thai Union/Pakfood reported the entered value for their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. Where Mayao and Thai Union/Pakfood did not report entered value, we calculated the entered value in order to calculate the assessment rates.

    11 Shrimp produced and exported by Marine Gold were excluded from the antidumping duty order effective February 1, 2012. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Revocation of Order (in Part); 2011-2012, 78 FR 42497. Accordingly, we are conducting this administrative review with respect to Marine Gold only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Marine Gold acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).

    For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we used as the assessment rate the average of the cash deposit rates calculated for Mayao and Thai Union/Pakfood.

    Consistent with our established practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Mayao, Thai Union/Pakfood, or any of the companies with accepted no shipment claims for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate effective during the POR if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, as well as those companies listed in the “Determination of No Shipments” section, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.34 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the Section 129 Determination. 12 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    12 Effective January 16, 2009, there is no longer a cash deposit requirement for certain producers/exporters in accordance with the Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: Notice of Determination under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 74 FR 5638 (January 30, 2009) (Section 129 Determination).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Issues General Issues 1. Differential Pricing Methodology 2. Ministerial Errors in Draft Customs Instructions Company-Specific Issues 3. Cost Database for Thai Union/Pakfood 4. General and Administrative Expenses for Thai Union/Pakfood V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-13941 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for August 2017

    The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in August 2017 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews (Sunset Reviews).

    Antidumping duty proceedings Department contact Seamless Line and Pressure Pipe from Germany (A-428-820) (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255 Countervailing Duty Proceedings

    No Sunset Review of countervailing duty orders is scheduled for initiation in August 2017.

    Suspended Investigations

    No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in August 2017.

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13936 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-806] Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of this fourth sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice, infra.

    DATES:

    Effective July 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karine Gziryan or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4081 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.

    Background

    On June 10, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC.1 On March 3, 2017, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On March 3, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1), the Department received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset review from Globe Metallurgical, Inc., a domestic producer of silicon metal (Globe).3 This notice was filed within the time period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).4 On March 24, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), Globe filed a timely and adequate substantive response.5 The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) fourth sunset review of the Order.

    1See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 26649 (June 10, 1991) (Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review, 82 FR 12438 (March 3, 2017).

    3See Letter from Domestic Interested Party (Globe) re Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China; Fourth Sunset Review; Notice of Intent to Participate dated March 3, 2017.

    4See Id.

    5See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China; Fourth Sunset Review; Substantive Response of Globe Metallurgical Inc. to the Notice of Initiation, dated March 24, 2017 (Globe Substantive Response).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by weight. Also covered by the order is silicon metal containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains a higher aluminum content than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight (58 FR 27542, May 10, 1993). Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to this order. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, specifically the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked, is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.6 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 http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China dated (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Results of Sunset Review

    Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 139.49 percent.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders 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 the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13940 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms 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:

    On March 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review (POR) February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. We received comments from Dezhou Kaihang Agricultural Science Technology Co., Ltd. (Dezhou Kaihang) agreeing with the preliminary results. No other party submitted comments. Accordingly, the final results remain unchanged from the preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective July 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Heaney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 6, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Results1 of the 2015-2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty order 2 on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On April 5, 2017, the Department received a letter in lieu of a case brief from Dezhou Kaihang.3 No other parties submitted case briefs or rebuttal briefs.

    1See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 82 FR 12564 (March 6, 2017) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (Order).

    3 See Dezhou Kaihang Agricultural Science Technology Co., Ltd.'s Letter Brief in the Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China submitted April 5, 2017.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.4

    4 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance from Gary Taverman Deputy Assistant Secretary Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice and incorporated herein by reference.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    We addressed the comments received by Dezhou Kaihang in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. 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 it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that Zhangzhou Hongda Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (Hongda) and Zhangzhou Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd. Fujian and Zhangzhou Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd (collectively Gangchang) did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.5 In particular, we found that Hongda and Gangchang submitted timely certifications of no shipments, entries, or sales of subject merchandise during the POR, and we did not receive any information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicating there were reviewable entries for those companies during the POR.

    5See Preliminary Results, 82 FR at 12564-12565

    Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, we stated in the Preliminary Results that the Department would not rescind the review in these circumstances but, rather, would complete the review with respect to Hongda and Gangchang and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.6 We did not receive any comments following our Preliminary Results with respect to this issue. As such, in these final results, we continue to determine that Hongda and Gangchang had no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR.

    6Id.

    Final Results of Review

    The Department received no comments disagreeing with the methodology or analysis employed in the Preliminary Results. Accordingly, the Department continues to determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists in these final results:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Dezhou Kaihang Agricultural Science Technology Co. Ltd 0.00

    Additionally, in the Preliminary Results, we determined that the second mandatory respondent, Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa), failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate and preliminarily determined to treat Kangfa as part of the PRC‐wide entity.7 We also preliminarily found that the remaining 98 exporters subject to this review did not establish their eligibility for separate rate status and that they were, thus, part of the PRC-wide entity.

    7Id., at 12564.

    No parties commented on this issue following the Preliminary Results. Therefore, in these final results, we continue to determine that Kangfa and the other 98 exporters are part of the PRC-wide entity.8 Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity and the Department no longer considers the PRC-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews, we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity, and the entity's rate is not subject to change in this review.9

    8 Companies that are subject to this administrative review that are considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity are: (1) Agrogentra & Co., Ltd., (2) Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd., (3) Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd., (4) Cargo Services (China) Limited, (5) Casia Global Logistics Co., Ltd., (6) Changzhou Chen Rong-Da Carpet Co., Ltd., (7) Chaoda Mushroom Co., Ltd., (8) China National Cereals, Oil & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp., (9) China Processed Food Import & Export Co., (10) Dalian New Century Food Co., Ltd., (11) DHL ISC (Hong Kong) Limited, (12) DSV Air Sea Co., Ltd., (13) Dujiangyan Xingda Foodstuff Co., Ltd., (14) Ever Since Group Co., Ltd., (15) Fujian Blue Lake Foods Co., Ltd., (16) Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd., (17) Fujian Haishan Foods Co., Ltd., (18) Fujian Pinghe Baofeng Canned Foods, (19) Fujian Tongfa Foods Group Co., Ltd., (20) Fujian Yuxing Fruits and Vegetables Foodstuffs Development Co., Ltd., (21) Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd.,(22) Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industry Co., Ltd., (23) Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd., (24) Guangxi Hengyong Industrial & Commerical Dev. Ltd., (25) Guangxi Jisheng Foods, Inc., (26) Hangzhou Happy Green Co., Ltd., (27) Hoa Mai Food Company Limited, (28) Honour Lane Shipping Ltd., (29) Inter-Foods (Dongshan) Co., Ltd., (30) Jeenhuat Foodstuffs Industries Sdn. Bhd., (31) Jewell International Corporation, (32) Jiangxi Cereals Oils Foodstuffs, (33) Jin Feng Food Co., Ltd., (34) Joy Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd., (35) Kuehne & Nagel Limited Xiamen Branch, (36) LF Logistics Co., Ltd., (37) Kangfa, (38) Linyi Yuqiao International Trade Co., Ltd., (39) Logistics THL Corp., (40) Longhai Guangfa Food Co., Ltd, (41) Mikado Food China Co., Ltd., (42) Nam Phuong International Co., Ltd., (43) Nam Tien Production & Export Co., Ltd., (44) Omni Ringo Business Ltd., (45) OOCL Logistics Ltd., (46) Orient Express Container Co., Ltd., (47) Paifu Enterprise Corporation, (48) Panalpina World Transport (PRC) Ltd., (49) Philippine Haofeng Food Corporation, (50) Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd., (51) PT. Apex Maritim Indonesia, (52) PT. Eka Timur Raya (Etira Mushrooms), (53) PT. Suryajaya Abadi Perkasa, (54) Pudong Prime International Logistics Inc., (55) Seahorse Shipping Corporation, (56) Shandong Fengyu Edible Fungus Corporation Ltd., (57) Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd., (58) Shandong Xinfa Agricultural Science Corporation Ltd., (59) Shandong Yinfeng Rare Fungus Corporation, Ltd., (60) Shanghai Best Wholesome Economy & Trade Co., Ltd., (61) Shenzhen Syntrans International Logistics Co., Ltd., (62) Shouguang Sunrise Industry & Commerce Co., Ltd., (63) Shundi Foods Co., Ltd. (64) Speedier Logistics Co., Ltd., (65) Success Program International Transport J. S.C., (66) Sun Mark Industrial Corp., (67) Sun VN Transport Corp., (68) Sun Wave Trading Co., Ltd., (69) Sun Wave & Trading Co., Ltd., (70) Sunrise Food Industry & Commerce, (71) Thuy Duong Transport and Trading Service JSC, (72) Tianjin Fulida Supply Co., Ltd., (73) Woo Sun Food Factory Co., (74) Xiamen Aukking Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., (75) Xiamen Carre Food Co., Ltd., (76) Xiamen Choice Harvest Imp., (77) Xiamen Greenland Import & Export Co., Ltd., (78) Xiamen Gulong Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., (79) Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co., Ltd., (80) Xiamen Huamin Import & Export Co., Ltd., (81) Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd., (82) Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd., (83) Xiamen Lian Fang Industry Co., Ltd., (84) Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd., (85) Xiamen Longhuai Import & Export Co., Ltd., (86) Xiamen Sungiven Import & Export Co., Ltd., (87) Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. (88) Zhangzhou Long Mountain Foods Co., Ltd., (89) Zhangzhou Longhai Minhui Industry & Trade Co. Ltd., (90) Zhangzhou Tan Co. Ltd. Fujian, China, (91) Zhangzhou Tan Co., Ltd., (92) Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods Industry Co., Ltd., (93) Zhangzhou Xiangcheng Rainbow & Greenland Food Co., Ltd., (94) Zhangzhou Yuxing Imp. & Exp. Trading Co., Ltd., (95) Zhangzhou Yuxing Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd., (96) Zhejiang Jinhua Jinli Mushroom Co., Ltd., (97) Zhejiang Iceman Food Co., Ltd., (98) Zhejiang Iceman Group Co., Ltd., and (99) Zhongshan Magic Foodstuff Co., Ltd.

    9See 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).

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. In these final results, Dezhou Kaihang's weighted-average dumping margin is zero. Accordingly, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the entries reported by Dezhou Kaihang without regard to antidumping duties. The Department also intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise from the exporters identified above as being part of the PRC-wide entity (including Kangfa) at the PRC-wide rate, i.e., 308.33 percent.

    Pursuant to a refinement in the Department's non-market economy 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.10 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 rate.11 As noted above, the Department determines that Hongda and Gangchang did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. As a result, any suspended entries that entered under these exporters' case numbers will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

    10See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    11Id.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Dezhou Kaihang the cash deposit is zero percent; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently-completed 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 that for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 308.33 percent); 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 the non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this 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 double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a 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.

    Dated: June 26, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment: Whether the Department Should Reaffirm the Preliminary Results With Respect to Dezhou Kaihang Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-13939 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the Commission) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Reviews which covers the same order(s).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    Initiation of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):

    DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A-351-825 731-TA-678 Brazil Stainless Steel Bar (4th Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. A-570-901 731-TA-1095 China Lined Paper Products (2nd Review) Robert James, (202) 482-0649. A-570-601 731-TA-344 China Tapered Roller Bearings (4th Review) Robert James, (202) 482-0649. A-533-843 731-TA-1096 India Lined Paper Products (2nd Review) Robert James, (202) 482-0649. C-533-844 701-TA-442 India Lined Paper Products (2nd Review) Robert James, (202) 482-0649. A-533-810 731-TA-679 India Stainless Steel Bar (4th Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. A-588-833 731-TA-681 Japan Stainless Steel Bar (4th Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. A-469-805 731-TA-682 Spain Stainless Steel Bar (4th Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. A-580-867 731-TA-1189 Republic of Korea Large Power Transformers (4th Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Filing Information

    As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/. All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

    1See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in these segments.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

    2See section 782(b) of the Act.

    3See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)).

    On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).4 Parties are advised to review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied. Parties are also advised to review the final rule concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD/CVD proceedings, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1309frn/2013-22853.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.5

    4See Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013).

    5See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

    Information Required From Interested Parties

    Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.6

    6See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

    If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

    This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

    Dated: June 21, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13938 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048] Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting and webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the Federal Register a direct final rule to establish new energy conservation standards for dedicated purpose pool pumps. These standards did not directly address the efficiency of the motors used in dedicated-purpose pool pumps, particularly in replacement applications. Interested stakeholders have encouraged DOE to initiate a working group to specifically address dedicated-purpose pool pump motors that can be used in replacement applications. Therefore, DOE is announcing a public meeting to gather data and information that could lead to the consideration of energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pump (DPPPs) motors. The meeting will be held on August 10, 2017.

    DATES:

    DOE will hold a public meeting on August 10, 2017 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See the “Public Participation” section of this notice for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please see the, “Public Participation” section of this notice for additional information on attending the public meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 26, 2017, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice confirming the effective date and compliance date of new energy conservation standards for dedicated purpose pool pumps (82 FR 24218). These standards were established through a direct final rule published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5650) and directly reflect the unanimous consensus of a negotiated rulemaking working group for DPPPs (“the DPPP Working Group”). In comments submitted in response to this direct final rule, four parties commented that they hesitated to support or stated they did not support the direct final rule, despite their participation in the DPPP Working Group and unanimous consensus, because the direct final rule did not address replacement motors that could be used in dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Two parties further encouraged DOE to initiate a working group to specifically address energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors. (All comments are available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048.) DOE plans to hold this public meeting to gather data and information that could lead to the consideration of energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors and to consider the formation of a working group on dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.

    Public Participation Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify the Appliance and Equipment Standards staff at (202) 586-6636 or [email protected]

    Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed.

    DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through security.

    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific States and U.S. territories. DHS maintains an updated Web site identifying the State and territory driver's licenses that currently are acceptable for entry into DOE facilities at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. A driver's license from a State or territory identified as not compliant by DHS will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by States and territories as identified on the DHS Web site (Enhanced licenses issued by these States and territories are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government-issued Photo-ID card.

    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=6. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

    Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

    Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting.

    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.

    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other relevant matters. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.

    A transcript of the public meeting will be included on DOE's Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=6. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2017. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13928 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD17-14-000] Three Sisters Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On June 22, 2017, Three Sisters Irrigation District filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed McKenzie Reservoir Hydroelectric Facility Project would have an installed capacity of 300 kilowatts (kW), and would be located on the proposed 5.5-miles-long irrigation pipeline. The project would be located in the town of Sisters, Deschutes County, Oregon.

    Applicant Contact: Marc Thalacker, P.O. Box 2230, Sisters, OR 97759, Phone No. (541) 549-8815.

    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No. (202) 502-6062, email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse, at the end of the proposed 42-inch-diameter irrigation pipe; (2) one new turbine/generating unit with a total installed capacity of 300 kW; (3) a short tailrace emptying into McKenzie Reservoir, from which irrigation channels provide water to nearby farms; and (4) appurtenant facilities.

    The proposed project would have an annual generation capacity of 1,300,000 kWh.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed hydroelectric project will be constructed along a penstock pipeline, which is being built to pass water from one reservoir to another for irrigation purposes. The construction of the hydroelectric facility will not alter the pipeline's primary purpose. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY or MOTION TO INTERVENE, as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2016).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD17-14) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13956 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e) (1) (v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP16-22-000 6-15-2017 Cheryl L. Urban. Exempt: 1. P-12966-004 6-12-2017 U.S. Congress.1 2. CP16-10-000 6-15-2017 U.S. House Representative.
  • H. Morgan Griffith.
  • 3. P-1494-437 6-16-2017 U.S. Congress.2 4. P-2809-034 6-22-2017 FERC Staff.3 1 Senators Orrin G. Hatch and Mike Lee. House Representatives Chris Stewart, Rob Bishop, Jason Chaffetz, and Mia Love. 2 Senators James M. Inhofe and James Lakeford. House Representatives Markwayne Mullin and Jim Bridenstine. 3 Telephone Record reporting call on June 20, 2017 with Andrew Qua of Kleinschmidt Associates.
    Dated: June 27, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13955 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-50-000.

    Applicants: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Revised Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 6/22/2017; Filing Type: 1000.

    Filed Date: 6/21/17.

    Accession Number: 201706215104.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-836-000.

    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per 154.204: Section 4 Rate Change Filing to be effective 8/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 06/21/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5066.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-837-000.

    Applicants: MIGC LLC.

    Description: Annual Fuel Retention Percentage Tracker of MIGC LLC.

    Filed Date: 06/21/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170621-5133.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2017.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 22, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr. Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13962 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2487-004; ER15-2380-002.

    Applicants: Pacific Summit Energy LLC, Willey Battery Utility, LLC.

    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for the Northeast Region of the Sumitomo Companies, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/27/17.

    Accession Number: 20170627-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3069-007; ER10-3070-007.

    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Alcoa Power Marketing LLC.

    Description: Southeast Regional Triennial Submission and Notice of Change in Status of the Alcoa Subsidiaries.

    Filed Date: 6/27/17.

    Accession Number: 20170627-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1357-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Joint OATT DEP and DEC Real Power Loss Factor Deficiency Filing to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/27/17.

    Accession Number: 20170627-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1379-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency Response in ER17-1379—Att AE Section 8.4 Re-Pricing Clarification to be effective 6/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/27/17.

    Accession Number: 20170627-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1916-000.

    Applicants: Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SMECO submits revisions to OATT, Sch 1A and Att. H-9C re: new distribution rates to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 6/27/17.

    Accession Number: 20170627-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 27, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-13961 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2246-065] Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Major License.

    b. Project No.: 2246-065.

    c. Date filed: April 28, 2014.

    d. Applicant: Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA).

    e. Name of Project: Yuba River Development Project.

    f. Location: The Yuba River Development Project facilities are located on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada on the main stems of the Yuba River, the North Yuba River, the Middle Yuba River, and Oregon Creek (a tributary to the Middle Yuba River) in Yuba, Sierra, and Nevada Counties, California. Portions of the project occupy lands of the Plumas and Tahoe National Forests.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Curt Aikens, General Manager, Yuba County Water Agency, 1220 F Street, Marysville, California 95901, 530-741-6278.

    i. FERC Contact: Alan Mitchnick at (202) 502-6074 or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2246-065.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.

    l. New Colgate Development: The New Colgate development consists of the following existing facilities: (1) The 70-foot-high, 368-foot-long Our House diversion dam with a storage capacity of 280 acre-feet, located on the Middle Yuba River 12.0 miles upstream of its confluence with the North Yuba River; (2) the 12.5-foot-high by 12.5-foot-wide, 19,410-foot-long Lohman Ridge diversion tunnel that conveys a maximum flow of 860 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Middle Yuba River to Oregon Creek; (3) the 42.5-foot-high and 105-foot-radius Log Cabin diversion dam on Oregon Creek with a storage capacity of 90 acre-feet; (4) the 6,107-foot-long Camptonville diversion tunnel, with the capacity to convey 1,100 cfs of water to New Bullards Bar reservoir on the North Yuba River; (5) the 645-foot-high, 2,323-foot-long New Bullards Bar dam located on the North Yuba River about 2.3 miles upstream of its confluence with the Middle Yuba River, with an actual release capacity of 1,250 cfs; (6) the New Bullards Bar reservoir, a storage reservoir on the North Yuba River formed by New Bullards Bar dam, with a storage area of 4,790 acres; (7) the New Bullards Bar dam overflow-type spillway with a width of 106 feet and a crest elevation of 1,902 feet; (8) the 5.2-mile-long New Colgate Power tunnel and penstock, with a maximum flow capacity of 3,500 cfs; (9) the New Colgate powerhouse, located adjacent to the Yuba River containing two Pelton type turbines with a total generating capacity of 315 megawatts (MW); (10) the New Colgate switchyard, located adjacent to the New Colgate powerhouse; (11) recreation facilities on New Bullards Bar reservoir, including Emerald Cove Marina, Hornswoggle Group Camp, Schoolhouse Family Camp, Dark Day Campground, Dark Day Boat Ramp, Garden Point Campground, Madrone Cove Campground, and Cottage Creek Boat Ramp; and (12) appurtenant facilities and features including access roads.

    YCWA proposes to: (1) Construct a flood control outlet at New Bullards Bar dam; (2) construct a tailwater depression system at New Colgate powerhouse; (3) modify the Our House diversion dam fish release outlet; (4) modify the Log Cabin diversion dam fish release outlet; (5) modify the Lohman Ridge diversion tunnel intake; (6) modify recreation facilities at New Bullards Bar reservoir, including construction of Kelly Ridge campground and recreation vehicle dump station; and (7) modify project roads.

    New Bullards Bar Minimum Flow Development: The New Bullards Bar Minimum Flow Development consists of the following existing facilities: (1) The 70-foot long, 12-inch-diameter New Bullards minimum flow powerhouse penstock with a maximum flow capacity of 6 cfs; (2) the New Bullards minimum flow powerhouse, containing a single Pelton turbine with a capacity of 150 kilowatts; (3) the New Bullards minimum flow transformer, located adjacent to the New Bullards minimum flow powerhouse; and (4) appurtenant facilities and features, including access roads.

    Narrows 2 Development: The Narrows 2 Development consists of the following existing facilities: (1) The Narrows 2 powerhouse penstock, a tunnel that is 20 feet in diameter and concrete lined in the upper 376 feet, and 14 feet in diameter and steel lined for the final 371.5 feet, with a maximum flow capacity of 3,400 cfs; (2) the Narrows 2 flow bypass, a valve and penstock branch off the main Narrows 2 penstock that provides the capability to bypass flows of up to 3,000 cfs around the Narrows 2 powerhouse during times of full or partial powerhouse shutdowns; (3) the Narrows 2 powerhouse, an indoor powerhouse located at the base of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Englebright dam, consisting of one vertical axis Francis turbine with a generating capacity of 46.7 MW; (4) the Narrows 2 powerhouse switchyard, located adjacent to the powerhouse; and (5) appurtenant facilities and features, including access roads.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST, MOTION TO INTERVENE, COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    o. Procedural Schedule: The appl