Federal Register Vol. 82, No.139,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 139 (July 21, 2017)

Page Range33775-34250
FR Document

82_FR_139
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 34249 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal OrganizationsPDF
82 FR 33894 - Applications for New Awards; Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant ProgramPDF
82 FR 33871 - Pacific Islands Pelagic Fisheries; American Samoa Longline Limited Entry ProgramPDF
82 FR 33872 - Procurement List: Proposed deletionsPDF
82 FR 33911 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 33910 - Local Government Advisory Committee: Request for NominationsPDF
82 FR 33908 - Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance-Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; Vopak Logistics Services USA Inc. Deer Park, TexasPDF
82 FR 33922 - Center for Mental Health Services; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 33809 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 33 for Significant New Alternatives Policy ProgramPDF
82 FR 33907 - Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement: Parker Street Waste Site, New Bedford, MassachusettsPDF
82 FR 33904 - EPA's Intent To Disclose Confidential Business Information (CBI) Contained in Vehicle Sales Data for Model Years 2015 to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) for Use in Modeling and Projecting Energy Demand in the Light-Duty Vehicle SectorPDF
82 FR 33905 - Clean Water Act Class II: Proposed Administrative Settlement, Penalty Assessment and Opportunity To Comment Regarding JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.PDF
82 FR 33922 - Committee management; notice of Federal Advisory Committee meetingPDF
82 FR 33913 - Medicare, Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Meeting on Behavioral Health Payment and Care DeliveryPDF
82 FR 33799 - Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation AreasPDF
82 FR 33915 - Medicaid Program; State Allotments for Payment of Medicare Part B Premiums for Qualifying Individuals (QIs): Federal Fiscal Year 2014 and Federal Fiscal Year 2015 through Calendar Year 2015PDF
82 FR 33802 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor), Between the Towns of Duluth, MN and Superior, WIPDF
82 FR 33803 - Safety Zone; Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks, Wheeling, WVPDF
82 FR 33864 - Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of DirectorsPDF
82 FR 33868 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 33940 - Chicago Rail & Port, LLC- Lease and Operation Exemption-Rail Line of South Chicago Property Development, LLCPDF
82 FR 33943 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
82 FR 33880 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Annual Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program AssurancesPDF
82 FR 33879 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual Report of Children in State Agency and Locally Operated Institutions for Neglected or Delinquent ChildrenPDF
82 FR 33911 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 33939 - Missouri Disaster Number MO-00081PDF
82 FR 33881 - Applications for New Awards; Promise Neighborhoods ProgramPDF
82 FR 33939 - Missouri Disaster Number MO-00082PDF
82 FR 33852 - Touhy RegulationsPDF
82 FR 33926 - Large Residential Washers; Institution and Scheduling of Safeguard Investigation and Determination That the Investigation Is Extraordinarily Complicated, AmendmentPDF
82 FR 33927 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products); Institution and Scheduling of Safeguard Investigation and Determination That the Investigation Is Extraordinarily Complicated, AmendmentPDF
82 FR 33931 - Information Collection: DOE/NRC Form 740M, Concise Note; DOE/NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report; DOE/NRC Form 742, Material Balance Report; DOE/NRC Form 742C, Physical Inventory ListingPDF
82 FR 33868 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 33869 - Notice of Public Meeting of the California Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 33869 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 33934 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33921 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33942 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 33804 - Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice; ClarificationPDF
82 FR 33908 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (Renewal)PDF
82 FR 33903 - Notice of Availability of Two Updated Chapters in the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Pollution Control Cost ManualPDF
82 FR 33911 - Information Collection; General Services Acquisition Regulation; Information Specific to a Contract or Contracting Action (Not Required by Regulation)PDF
82 FR 33933 - Information Collection: NRC Form 4, Cumulative Occupational Exposure HistoryPDF
82 FR 33876 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33946 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 33933 - Assessment of the Assumption of Normality (Employing Individual Observed Values)PDF
82 FR 33899 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board of Directors' MeetingsPDF
82 FR 33901 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 33899 - AEP Texas Central Company; AEP Texas North Company; Notice of Request for WaiverPDF
82 FR 33901 - Pike County Light and Power Company; Notice of Request for WaiverPDF
82 FR 33901 - Apple Blossom Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 33899 - Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 33902 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 33900 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 33825 - Filing Instructions for Cross-Service FM Translator Auction Filing Window for AM Broadcasters To Be Open July 26-August 2, 2017; Freeze on FM Translator and Low-Power FM Station Minor Change Applications and FM Booster Applications July 19-August 2, 2017; Availability of Online Tutorial; Clarification of Eligible ApplicantsPDF
82 FR 33929 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33870 - Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 33909 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Bunge North America, Inc. Destrehan Grain Elevator, Destrehan, St. Charles Parish, LouisianaPDF
82 FR 33928 - Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33865 - Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming, Landscape Vegetation Analysis (LaVA) ProjectPDF
82 FR 33936 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the BOX Fee SchedulePDF
82 FR 33938 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the EtherIndex Ether Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201PDF
82 FR 33877 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 33941 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc.PDF
82 FR 33939 - Defense Trade Advisory Group; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
82 FR 33927 - Comment Request for the Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Evaluation of the Employment First State Leadership Mentoring Program (EFSLMP)PDF
82 FR 33942 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Phoenix Air UNMANNED, LLCPDF
82 FR 33870 - Notice of Availability of a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the West Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband NetworkPDF
82 FR 33806 - Rules of Conduct for Postal EmployeesPDF
82 FR 33923 - Foreign Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
82 FR 33864 - Notice of Meeting of the National Organic Standards BoardPDF
82 FR 33946 - Proposed Collection: Comment Request for Forms 945, 945-A, and, 945-XPDF
82 FR 33945 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33829 - Pecans Grown in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas; Establishment of Reporting Requirements and New Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 33775 - Walnuts Grown in California; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
82 FR 33856 - Calling Number Identification Service-Caller IDPDF
82 FR 33856 - Petition for Partial Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, Suspension of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
82 FR 33926 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From Vietnam; Termination of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 33925 - Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Belgium, Colombia, and ThailandPDF
82 FR 33925 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From China, India, Korea, and TaiwanPDF
82 FR 33827 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for the Commonwealth of MassachusettsPDF
82 FR 33867 - Notice for Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 33936 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33935 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33880 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Mandatory Civil Rights Data CollectionPDF
82 FR 33921 - Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Part C Early Intervention Services GrantPDF
82 FR 33796 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Medford, ORPDF
82 FR 33792 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Albany, GAPDF
82 FR 33837 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Elizabeth City, NCPDF
82 FR 33790 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Morgantown, WVPDF
82 FR 33836 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Augusta, ARPDF
82 FR 33794 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Fayetteville, TNPDF
82 FR 33833 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Seward, NEPDF
82 FR 33864 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 33876 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose LightersPDF
82 FR 33874 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Procedures for Export of Noncomplying ProductsPDF
82 FR 33874 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
82 FR 33873 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Consumer Focus GroupsPDF
82 FR 33875 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Extension of Approval of Information Collection; Comment Request-Safety Standard for Bicycle HelmetsPDF
82 FR 33798 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ashburn, GAPDF
82 FR 33834 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Clarinda, IAPDF
82 FR 33795 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Laurel, MSPDF
82 FR 33791 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Orange City, IAPDF
82 FR 33807 - Air Plan Approval; Florida: Unnecessary Rule RemovalPDF
82 FR 33851 - Air Plan Approval; Florida: Unnecessary Rule RemovalPDF
82 FR 33839 - Covered Securities Pursuant to Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933PDF
82 FR 33912 - Extension of Funding to Special OlympicsPDF
82 FR 33785 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 33787 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 33940 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Lauren Pelicano: Child Restraint SystemPDF
82 FR 33780 - Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation HelicoptersPDF
82 FR 33778 - Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation)PDF
82 FR 33782 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 33950 - Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2018; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; and Medicare Diabetes Prevention ProgramPDF
82 FR 34206 - Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2018 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2019PDF

Issue

82 139 Friday, July 21, 2017 Contents African African Development Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors Quarterly, 33864 2017-15369 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Decreased Assessment Rates: Walnuts Grown in California, 33775-33778 2017-15304 PROPOSED RULES Establishment of Reporting Requirements: Pecans Grown in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, 33829-33833 2017-15305 NOTICES Meetings: National Organic Standards Board, 33864 2017-15308 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Housing Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33864-33865 2017-15282
Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33876-33877 2017-15341 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Funding Opportunity: National Centers on Health Promotion for People With Disabilities, 33912-33913 2017-15161 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Revisions to Payment Policies Under Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2018; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; and Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program, 33950-34203 2017-14639 NOTICES Medicaid Program: State Allotments for Payment of Medicare Part B Premiums for Qualifying Individuals: Federal Fiscal Year 2014 and Federal Fiscal Year 2015 Through Calendar Year 2015, 33915-33920 2017-15372 Meetings: Medicare, Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program: Behavioral Health Payment and Care Delivery, 33913-33915 2017-15374 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33921 2017-15348 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Alaska Advisory Committee, 33869 2017-15351 California Advisory Committee, 33869-33870 2017-15352 Maryland Advisory Committee, 33868-33869 2017-15368 Texas Advisory Committee, 33868 2017-15353 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor), Between the towns of Duluth, MN and Superior, WI, 33802-33803 2017-15371 Quarterly Listings: Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas, 33799-33802 2017-15373 Safety Zones: Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks, Wheeling, WV, 33803-33804 2017-15370 Commerce Commerce Department See

First Responder Network Authority

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled PROPOSED RULES Touhy Regulations, 33852-33856 2017-15357 NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 33872-33873 2017-15385 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consumer Focus Groups, 33873-33874 2017-15278 Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 33874-33875 2017-15279 Procedures for Export of Noncomplying Products, 33874 2017-15280 Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets, 33875-33876 2017-15277 Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters, 33876 2017-15281 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Arms Sales, 33877-33879 2017-15319
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Assurances, 33880 2017-15363 Annual Report of Children in State Agency and Locally Operated Institutions for Neglected or Delinquent Children, 33879-33880 2017-15362 Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection, 33880-33881 2017-15293 Applications for New Awards: Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant Program, 33894-33898 2017-15389 Promise Neighborhoods Program, 33881-33894 2017-15359 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Florida; Unnecessary Rule Removal, 33807-33809 2017-15268 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 33 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 33809-33825 2017-15379 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Florida; Unnecessary Rule Removal, 33851-33852 2017-15267 Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2018 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2019, 34206-34245 2017-14632 NOTICES Access to Confidential Business Information: Vehicle Sales Data for Model Years 2015 to the U.S. Energy Information Administration for Use in Modeling and Projecting Energy Demand in the Light-Duty Vehicle Sector, 33904-33905 2017-15377 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 33908-33909 2017-15345 Availability of Two Updated Chapters in the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 33903-33904 2017-15344 CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlements: Parker Street Waste Site, New Bedford, MA, 33907-33908 2017-15378 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 33911 2017-15384 Petitions for Exemptions; Reissuance: Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Vopak Logistics Services USA Inc. Deer Park, TX, 33908 2017-15382 Petitions for Objections to State Operating Permits: Bunge North America, Inc. Destrehan Grain Elevator, Destrehan, St. Charles Parish, LA, 33909-33910 2017-15324 Proposed Settlements: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 33905-33907 2017-15376 Requests for Nominations: Local Government Advisory Committee, 33910 2017-15383 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 33787-33790 2017-15119 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters, 33780-33782 2017-15033 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation), 33778-33780 2017-15032 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 33782-33787 2017-14929 2017-15121 Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Morgantown, WV, 33790-33791 2017-15286 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Albany, GA, 33792-33793 2017-15289 Fayetteville, TN, 33794-33795 2017-15284 Laurel, MS, 33795-33796 2017-15274 Medford, OR, 33796-33797 2017-15290 Orange City, IA, 33791-33792 2017-15273 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Ashburn, GA, 33798-33799 2017-15276 PROPOSED RULES Class D and Class E Airspace; Amendments: Elizabeth City, NC, 33837-33839 2017-15288 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Augusta, AR, 33836-33837 2017-15285 Clarinda, IA, 33834-33836 2017-15275 Seward, NE, 33833-33834 2017-15283 NOTICES Petitions for Exemption; Summaries: CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc., 33941 2017-15317 Lauren Pelicano: Child Restraint System, 33940-33941 2017-15087 Phoenix Air UNMANNED, LLC, 33942 2017-15314 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Filing Instructions for Cross-Service FM Translator Auction Filing Window for AM Broadcasters to be Open July 26-August 2, 2017; Freeze on FM Translator and Low-Power FM Station Minor Change Applications and FM Booster Applications July 19-August 2, 2017; Availability of Online Tutorial; Clarification of Eligible Applicants, 33825-33827 2017-15327 PROPOSED RULES Calling Number Identification Service—Caller ID, 33856-33863 2017-15303 Petition for Partial Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, Suspension of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 33856 2017-15302 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 33900-33902 2017-15328 2017-15329 2017-15334 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Apple Blossom Wind, LLC, 33901 2017-15331 Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC, 33899 2017-15330 Requests for Waivers: AEP Texas Central Co. and AEP Texas North Co., 33899 2017-15333 Pike County Light and Power Co., 33901 2017-15332 Staff Attendances, 33899-33900 2017-15335 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Federal Agency Actions: California; Proposed Highways, 33942-33943 2017-15347 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 33911 2017-15361 FIRSTNET First Responder Network Authority NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: West Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, 33870 2017-15312 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Permit Applications: Foreign Endangered Species, 33923-33925 2017-15310 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 33943-33945 2017-15364 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Landscape Vegetation Analysis Project, Medicine Bow National Forest, WY, 33865-33867 2017-15322 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33911-33912 2017-15343 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Funding Awards: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Part C Early Intervention Services Grant, 33921-33922 2017-15292 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

NOTICES Meetings: Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee, 33922-33923 2017-15375
Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33945-33946 2017-15306 2017-15307 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Vietnam, 33926 2017-15301 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand, 33925-33926 2017-15300 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products), 33927 2017-15355 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From China, India, Korea, and Taiwan, 33925 2017-15299 Large Residential Washers, 33926-33927 2017-15356 Labor Department Labor Department See

Labor Statistics Bureau

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of the Employment First State Leadership Mentoring Program, 33927-33928 2017-15315
Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33928-33929 2017-15323 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board, 33870-33871 2017-15325 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Summer Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for Massachusetts, 33827-33828 2017-15298 NOTICES Pacific Islands Pelagic Fisheries: American Samoa Longline Limited Entry Program, 33871-33872 2017-15387 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33929-33931 2017-15326 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33931-33933 2017-15354 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cumulative Occupational Exposure History, 33933-33934 2017-15342 Regulatory Guides: Assessment of the Assumption of Normality; Withdrawal, 33933 2017-15336 Patent Patent and Trademark Office RULES Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice; Clarification, 33804-33806 2017-15346 Postal Service Postal Service RULES Rules of Conduct: Postal Employees, 33806-33807 2017-15311 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Transnational Criminal Organizations; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of July 20, 2017), 34247-34250 2017-15592 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33867-33868 2017-15297 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Covered Securities Pursuant to Section 18 of Securities Act of 1933, 33839-33851 2017-15216 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33934-33936 2017-15294 2017-15295 2017-15296 2017-15349 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 33936-33938 2017-15321 NYSE Arca, Inc., 33938-33939 2017-15320 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Missouri, Amendment 1, 33939 2017-15360 Major Disaster Declarations: Missouri, 33939 2017-15358 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Defense Trade Advisory Group, 33939-33940 2017-15316 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Mental Health Services, 33922 2017-15381 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Lease and Operation Exemptions: Chicago Rail & Port, LLC; Rail Line of South Chicago Property Development, LLC, 33940 2017-15365 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee, 33946-33947 2017-15337 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 33950-34203 2017-14639 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 34206-34245 2017-14632 Part IV Presidential Documents, 34247-34250 2017-15592 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.

82 139 Friday, July 21, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 984 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0031; SC17-984-1 IR] Walnuts Grown in California; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the California Walnut Board (Board) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0465 to $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board is comprised of growers and handlers of walnuts and locally administers the marketing order that regulates the handling of walnuts grown in California. The Board also has a public member who has no financial interest in walnut production or handling. Assessments upon walnut handlers are used by the Board to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The marketing year begins September 1 and ends August 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective July 24, 2017. Comments received by September 19, 2017 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Jeffrey Smutny, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California walnut handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable walnuts beginning on September 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA will rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Board for the 2017-18 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0465 to $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts.

The California walnut marketing order provides authority for the Board, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. All members of the Board, except the public member, are growers and handlers of California walnuts. They are familiar with the Board's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2016-17 and subsequent marketing years, the Board recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.0465 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts that would continue in effect from year to year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to USDA.

The Board met on May 31, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $24,140,000 and a decreased assessment rate of $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $23,143,050. The assessment rate of $0.0400 is $0.0065 per pound lower than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2017-18 marketing year is estimated at a three-year average of 615,000 tons (inshell) or 553,500,000 kernelweight pounds, which is 62,000 tons more than the 553,000 tons assessed during the 2016-17 marketing year. At the recommended lower assessment rate of $0.0400 per kernelweight pound, the Board should collect approximately $22,140,000 in assessment income, which, when augmented with funds from the Board's monetary reserve, would be adequate to cover its 2017-18 budgeted expenses of $24,140,000.

The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 marketing years:

Budget expense categories 2016-17 2017-18 Employee Expenses $2,292,000 $1,787,000 Travel/Board Expenses/Annual Audit 206,000 192,000 Office Expenses 262,000 265,000 Program Expenses, Including Research: Controlled Purchases 10,000 10,000 Crop Acreage Survey 0 103,000 Crop Estimate 130,000 146,000 Production Research Director 175,000 98,000 Production Research 1,800,000 2,000,000 Sustainability Project 75,000 0 Grades and Standards Research 800,000 825,000 Domestic Market Development 18,398,040 19,447,830 Reserve for Contingency 59,010 47,170

The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected volumes of California walnuts certified as merchantable. The 615,000-ton (inshell) estimate for merchantable walnut receipts is an average of the three prior years' shipments.

Section 984.69 of the order authorizes the Board to carry over excess funds into subsequent marketing years as a reserve, provided that funds already in the reserve do not exceed approximately two years' budgeted expenses. The reserve is estimated to be $14,909,800 at the end of the marketing year, well within the authorized reserve amount.

The Board met on May 31, 2017, and unanimously approved using a three prior years' average walnut production volume to formulate the 2017-18 crop estimate. Pursuant to § 984.51(b) of the order, this figure is converted to a merchantable kernelweight basis using a factor of 0.45 (615,000 tons × 2,000 pounds per ton × 0.45), which yields 553,500,000 kernelweight pounds. At $0.0400 per pound, the new assessment rate should generate $22,140,000 in assessment income. The assessment income, plus $2,000,000 from the Board's reserve, will be adequate to cover its budgeted expenses.

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Board will continue to meet prior to or during each marketing year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or USDA. Board meetings are open to the public, and interested persons are encouraged to express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent marketing years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 5,700 growers of California walnuts in the production area and approximately 90 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural growers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS) 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 86 percent of California's walnut farms were smaller than 100 acres. Further, NASS reports that the average yield for 2015 was 2.01 tons per acre, and the average price received for 2015 was $1,620 per ton. A 100-acre farm with an average yield of 2.01 tons per acre would, therefore, have been expected to produce about 201 tons of walnuts. At $1,620 per ton, that farm's production would have had an approximate value of $325,620. This is well below the SBA threshold of $750,000; thus, it may be concluded that the majority of California's walnut growers are considered small growers according to SBA's definition.

According to information supplied by the industry, approximately two-thirds of California's walnut handlers shipped merchantable walnuts valued under $7,500,000 during the 2016-17 marketing year and would, therefore, be considered small handlers according to the SBA definition.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Board and collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0465 to $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $24,140,000 and an assessment rate of $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts, which is $0.0065 lower than the assessment rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2017-18 marketing year is estimated to be 615,000 tons, 62,000 tons greater than the quantity estimated for the 2016-17 marketing year. Therefore, even at the reduced assessment rate, the Board should collect approximately $22,140,000 in assessment income, which, when combined with $2,000,000 from its reserves, should be adequate to cover its budgeted expenses.

The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 marketing years:

Budget Expense Categories 2016-17 2017-18 Employee Expenses $2,292,000 $1,787,000 Travel/Board Expenses/Annual Audit 206,000 192,000 Office Expenses 262,000 265,000 Program Expenses, Including Research: Controlled Purchases 10,000 10,000 Crop Acreage Survey 0 103,000 Crop Estimate 130,000 146,000 Production Research Director 175,000 98,000 Production Research 1,800,000 2,000,000 Sustainability Project 75,000 0 Grades and Standards Research 800,000 825,000 Domestic Market Development 18,398,040 19,447,830 Reserve for Contingency 59,010 47,170

The Board reviewed and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $24,140,000. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Board considered alternative expenditure and assessment levels, as well as a recommendation from the Budget and Personnel Committee (Committee). The Committee considered the estimated income and expenses, given the requests from other committees, such as the Production Research, Market Development, and Grades and Standards Committees. The other committees each deliberated, formulated their own budgets of expenses, and made their recommendations to the Committee. The Committee also considered the recommendations and various assessment rates and expenses, then made a recommendation to the Board. The Board ultimately determined that the recommended levels were reasonable and necessary to properly administer the order.

The assessment rate of $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts was derived by dividing anticipated expenses of $24,140,000 by expected 2017-18 volumes of California walnuts certified as merchantable. Merchantable walnuts certified for the year are estimated at 553,500,000 kernelweight pounds, which should provide $22,140,000 in assessment income. Assessment income, coupled with $2,000,000 from the Board's reserve funds, should allow the Board to cover its expenses. Unexpended funds may be retained in a financial reserve, provided that funds in the financial reserve do not exceed approximately two years' budgeted expenses. The anticipated reserve should be $14,909,800, which is well within the order's requirement.

According to NASS, the season average grower price for 2015 was $1,620 per ton. Dividing this average grower price by 2,000 pounds per ton provides an inshell price per pound of $0.81. Dividing this inshell price per pound by the 0.45 conversion factor (inshell to kernelweight) established in the order yields a potential 2017-18 price of about $1.80 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts.

To calculate the percentage of grower revenue represented by the assessment rate, the assessment rate of $0.0400 per kernelweight pound is divided by the price. The estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 marketing year, stated as a percentage of total grower revenue, would be approximately 2 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to growers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may reduce the burden on growers.

In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California walnut industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the May 31, 2017, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order information collection requirements have been previously reviewed by OMB and assigned OMB No.: 0581-0178 (Walnuts Grown in California). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Board's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The action decreases the assessment rate for merchantable walnuts; (2) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Board at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (3) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984

Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Walnuts.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is amended as follows:

PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for part 984 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 984.347 is revised to read as follows:
§ 984.347 Assessment rate.

On and after September 1, 2017, an assessment rate of $0.0400 per kernelweight pound is established for California merchantable walnuts.

Dated: July 17, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-15304 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6968; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-020-AD; Amendment 39-18950; AD 2017-14-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation) AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 93-17-13 for Schweizer Aircraft Corporation and Hughes Helicopters, Inc. (now Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation) (Sikorsky) Model TH55A, 269A, 269A-1, 269B, and 269C helicopters. AD 93-17-13 required installing tachometer markings and inspecting the lower coupling driveshaft (driveshaft). This new AD requires repetitive inspections of the driveshaft and expands the applicability to include Model 269C-1 helicopters. This AD is prompted by reports of accidents because of driveshaft failures. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of August 25, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of October 20, 1993 (58 FR 51770, October 5, 1993).

ADDRESSES:

For Schweizer or Sikorsky service information identified in this final rule, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected] You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6968.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6968; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7161; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 93-17-13, Amendment 39-8684 (58 FR 51770, October 5, 1993) and add a new AD. AD 93-17-13 applied to Schweizer Aircraft Corporation and Hughes Helicopters, Inc. (now Sikorsky) Model TH55A, 269A, 269A-1, 269B, and 269C helicopters. AD 93-17-13 required within 30 days or 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), whichever occurs first and thereafter every 300 hours TIS, visually inspecting for cracks, machining steps, manufacturing tool marks, surface defects, and lack of cleanup during the production grinding operation. AD 93-17-13 also required installing engine and rotor tachometer markings and replacing any unairworthy driveshaft before further flight.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1267) and was prompted by a safety analysis by Sikorsky that determined the initial and recurrent inspection intervals and inspection method required by AD 93-17-13 were not adequate to detect all corrosion, pits, nicks, scratches, dents, and cracks. Accidents due to driveshaft failures continued to occur after AD 93-17-13 was issued. Therefore, the NPRM proposed to require, within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, visually inspecting the driveshaft. If there are no cracks, corrosion, or other damage, the NPRM proposed performing a magnetic particle inspection. If there is a crack or other damage, the NPRM proposed to require replacing the driveshaft before further flight. The NPRM also proposed adding tachometer markings if not previously performed. Expanding the applicability to include Model 269C-1 helicopters was also proposed because these helicopters were not manufactured when AD 93-17-13 was issued but have the applicable driveshafts installed. Finally, the NPRM proposed to include specific part-numbered driveshafts to the applicability because Sikorsky is developing a new driveshaft that we do not expect to be subject to this AD.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Interim Action

We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is developing a replacement driveshaft that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once the replacement driveshaft is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Sikorsky 269C Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin B-307, Basic Issue, dated December 18, 2014, and Sikorsky 269C-1 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin C1B-043, Basic Issue, dated December 18, 2014 (ASBs). The ASBs call for a one-time visual and magnetic particle inspection of the driveshaft and driveshaft assembly for damage. The ASBs advise that the driveshaft be sent to Sikorsky and replaced if damaged. The inspection is to be accomplished within 25 hours TIS or within 180 days from the ASBs' issue date, whichever comes first. Sikorsky has since revised its maintenance manual to incorporate these inspections every 150 hours TIS.

We also reviewed Schweizer Aircraft Service Bulletin B-257.1, dated May 21, 1993 (ASB B-257.1). ASB B-257.1 calls for a one-time inspection to look for drive-shaft defects; installing declutched limit markings on the engine/rotor tachometer to reinforce operating limits; and prohibiting engine declutched operations above 1600 RPM.

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.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

The Sikorsky service information calls for the initial inspection to be completed within 180 days or 25 hours TIS. This AD requires that the initial inspection to be completed within 25 hours TIS only. The service information requires contacting Sikorsky if a certain part-numbered driveshaft is installed, emailing information to Sikorsky, and returning damaged parts to Sikorsky; this AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 619 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• We estimate that the visual and magnetic particle inspections of the driveshaft requires 11 work hours for a cost of $935 per helicopter and $578,765 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

• Replacing the driveshaft, if needed, costs about $4,574 for parts. No additional labor costs are necessary.

• Installing engine and rotor tachometer markings requires 0.5 work-hour for a labor cost of about $43. The cost of parts is minimal.

Interim Action

We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is developing a replacement driveshaft that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once the replacement driveshaft is developed, approved and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 93-17-13, Amendment 39-8684 (58 FR 51770, October 5, 1993) and adding the following new AD: 2017-14-06  Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held By Schweizer Aircraft Corporation): Amendment 39-18950; Docket No. FAA-2016-6968; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-020-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Model TH55A, 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C and 269C-1 helicopters, with a lower coupling driveshaft (driveshaft) part number (P/N) 269-5412, 269A5504, 269A5504-003, 269A5504-005, 269A5559, or 269A5559-003 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a driveshaft. This condition could result in loss of power to the rotor system and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 93-17-13, Amendment 39-8684 (58 FR 51770, October 5, 1993).

(d) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 25, 2017.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

(1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), install engine and rotor tachometer markings in accordance with Part II of Schweizer Aircraft Service Bulletin B-257.1, dated May 21, 1993.

(2) Within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS:

(i) Visually inspect the driveshaft for corrosion, a pit, a nick, a scratch, a dent, and a crack in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(6) of Sikorsky 269C Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin B-307, Basic Issue, dated December 18, 2014 (269C ASB), or Sikorsky 269C-1 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin C1B-043, Basic Issue, dated December 18, 2014 (269C-1 ASB), whichever is applicable for your model helicopter, except we do not require that you use a Sikorsky recommended vendor list. If there is any corrosion, a pit, a nick, a scratch, a dent, or a crack, replace the driveshaft before further flight.

(ii) If there is no corrosion and no pits, nicks, scratches, dents, and cracks, magnetic particle inspect the driveshaft for a crack in accordance with paragraph 3.C.(1) of the 269C ASB or 269C-1 ASB, whichever is applicable for your model helicopter. This magnetic particle inspection must be performed by a Level II or higher technician with the National Aerospace Standard 410 or equivalent certification who has performed a magnetic particle inspection within the last 12 months. If there is a crack, replace the driveshaft before further flight.

(g) Credit for Actions Previously Completed

Compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of AD 93-17-13, Amendment 39-8684 (58 FR 51770, October 5, 1993) before the effective date of this AD is considered acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7161; email [email protected]

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

(i) Additional Information

For Schweizer or Sikorsky service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected] You may review a copy of information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(j) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300, Main Rotor Drive System.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 25, 2017.

(i) Sikorsky 269C Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin B-307, Basic Issue, dated December 18, 2014.

(ii) Sikorsky 269C-1 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin C1B-043, Basic Issue, dated December 18, 2014.

(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 20, 1993 (58 FR 51770, October 5, 1993).

(i) Schweizer Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin B-257.1, dated May 21, 1993.

(ii) Reserved.

(5) For Schweizer or Sikorsky service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected]

(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 3, 2017. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-15032 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5443; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-021-AD; Amendment 39-18884; AD 2017-10-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters. This AD requires installing an engine flame detector bracket assembly and harness assembly. This AD was prompted by reports of false fire warnings. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of August 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected] You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5443.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5443; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristopher Greer, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7799; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

On December 27, 2016, at 81 FR 95066, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters, serial numbers 920006 through 920298. The NPRM proposed to require installing a No. 2 engine outboard flame detector bracket assembly (bracket) and a No. 2 engine flame detector harness assembly (harness), if not already installed or if the bracket was not installed before the harness. The proposed AD was prompted by reports of false fire indications from the No. 2 engine outboard flame detectors. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent a false fire warning, which could result in an unnecessary emergency landing or ditching.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Sikorsky S-92 Customer Service Notice 92-094, Revision B, dated June 14, 2016, which provides procedures for installing harness part number (P/N) 92310-04201-041.

We also reviewed Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-107G, Revision G, dated February 25, 2016, (SSI No. 92-107G) which specifies installing new brackets, P/N 92070-30033-011, 92070-30033-014, and 92070-30033-015, to increase the stability of the No. 2 engine outboard flame detector.

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.

Other Related Service Information

We reviewed Sikorsky S-92 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 92-26-006, Basic Issue, dated February 25, 2016. This service information provides instructions for installing a new bracket by complying with SSI No. 92-107G. We also reviewed S-92 ASB 92-26-007, Basic Issue, dated June 14, 2016. This service information specifies installing harness P/N 92310-04201-041 after or concurrently with the new bracket.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 50 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that installing a new bracket and harness requires 15.25 work hours for a labor cost of about $1,296. Parts cost $100 for a total cost of about $1,396 per helicopter and $69,800 for the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-10  Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-18884; Docket No. FAA-2016-5443; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-021-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters, serial numbers 920006 through 920298, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a false fire warning. This condition could result in an unnecessary emergency landing or ditching.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 25, 2017.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

Within 180 hours time-in-service:

(1) For helicopters with a No. 2 engine outboard flame detector bracket assembly (bracket) (either part number (P/N) 92070-30033-014, or both P/N 92070-30033-011 and 92070-30033-015) installed, and with a No. 2 engine flame detector harness assembly (harness) P/N 92310-04201-041 installed: If the harness was installed before the bracket, replace the harness.

(2) For helicopters with a bracket (either P/N 92070-30033-014, or both P/N 92070-30033-011 and 92070-30033-015) installed, and without a harness P/N 92310-04201-041 installed: Remove the harness and install harness P/N 92310-04201-041 by following the Accomplishment Instructions, section 3.C.1, of Sikorsky S-92 Customer Service Notice 92-094, Revision B, dated June 14, 2016 (CSN 92-094).

(3) For helicopters without a bracket (either P/N 92070-30033-014, or both P/N 92070-30033-011 and 92070-30033-015) installed, and with a harness P/N 92310-04201-041 installed:

(i) Install a bracket P/N 92070-30033-014 by following the Instructions, paragraph D, of Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-107G, Revision G, dated February 25, 2016 (SSI 92-107G).

(ii) Replace the harness.

(4) For helicopters without a bracket (either P/N 92070-30033-014, or both P/N 92070-30033-011 and 92070-30033-015) installed, and without a harness P/N 92310-04201-041 installed:

(i) Install a bracket P/N 92070-30033-014 by following the Instructions, paragraph D, of SSI 92-107G.

(ii) Remove the harness and install harness P/N 92310-04201-041 by following the Accomplishment Instructions, section 3.C.1, of CSN 92-094.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kristopher Greer, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7799; email [email protected]

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

(g) Additional Information

Sikorsky S-92 Alert Service Bulletin 92-26-006, Basic Issue, dated February 25, 2016, and Sikorsky S-92 Alert Service Bulletin 92-26-007, Basic Issue, dated June 14, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected] You may review a copy of this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(h) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2612, Fire Detection.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Sikorsky S-92 Customer Service Notice 92-094, Revision B, dated June 14, 2016.

(ii) Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-107G, Revision G, dated February 25, 2016.

(3) For Sikorsky service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected]

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkw., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 5, 2017. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-15033 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9501; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-137-AD; Amendment 39-18961; AD 2017-15-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded altitude display changes in the mode control panel (MCP) altitude window. This AD requires replacing the existing MCP with a new MCP having a different part number. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9501.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9501; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Carreras, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6442; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92740) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of uncommanded altitude display changes in the MCP altitude window. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the existing MCP with a new MCP having a different part number. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded changes to the MCP selected at altitude; such uncommanded changes could result in incorrect spatial separation between airplanes, midair collision, or controlled flight into terrain.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

Boeing and FedEx stated that they concur with the contents of the NPRM.

Request To Reduce the Compliance Time

Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), indicated its support for the NPRM but requested that the compliance time in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be reduced from 60 months to 50 months. The commenter did not provide justification for its request.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to reduce the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications and the availability of required parts. In addition, we also received manufacturer concurrence for the 60-month compliance time. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the MCP parts can be replaced in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. For most ADs, operators are permitted to accomplish the requirements at a time earlier than the specified compliance time; for this AD, an operator may choose to replace the affected MCP at any time up to 60 months after the effective date of this AD. If additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, we might consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise the Applicability

United Airlines (UAL) requested that the applicability of the proposed AD be limited to only those MCP series parts on which the uncommanded changes in the speed/mach window occurred. The commenter noted that the NPRM did not indicate if the uncommanded changes were reported on all three MCP series parts (MCP-770, MCP-771, and MCP-770C) or only one MCP series part. The commenter suggested that if the uncommanded changes occurred only on one MCP series part, then the applicability of the proposed AD should be limited to that particular MCP series part. The commenter observed that this would reduce the number of MCP parts that need to be replaced or upgraded and reduce the compliance time needs.

We agree that clarification is necessary regarding the affected MCP series parts. Based on the manufacturer's installation review, the unsafe condition has been identified to exist in all three MCP series parts. Therefore, no change to this AD is required regarding this issue.

Request To Review the MCP Design

One commenter, Geoffrey Barrance, noted that the FAA has issued AD 2016-25-01, Amendment 39-18727 (81 FR 94949, December 27, 2016), which addressed uncommanded autopilot engagement before takeoff. The commenter thought that there was a similarity in the root causes (malfunction of the MCP) of the unsafe conditions in AD 2016-25-01 and this final rule. The commenter recommended that the FAA initiate a review of the MCP design, including changes that might have been introduced over the life of these units, to identify if the design was initially susceptible to, or has been subsequently compromised in a way that could result in the unsafe conditions of both ADs.

We infer the commenter may think the unsafe condition associated with AD 2016-25-01 resulted from a similar root cause as the unsafe condition addressed by this AD based on a statement in the Discussion section of the NPRM (80 FR 79735, December 23, 2015) associated with AD 2016-25-01. That statement noted that “the erroneous autopilot engage request is believed to have come from the mode control panel (MCP) and to have been caused by contamination within the MCP.” During the public comment period for the NPRM associated with AD 2016-25-01, Boeing stated that this statement was speculative and requested that the FAA remove it and replace it with a statement that possible failures in the autopilot flight director system can cause an uncommanded engagement of the autopilot. We agreed the replacement statement would be less speculative; however, because the Discussion section of an NPRM is not repeated in the final rule, AD 2016-25-01 was not revised.

We do not agree with the commenter's request because we have determined that there is no similarity in the root cause of the unsafe condition of AD 2016-25-01 and this AD. The unsafe condition identified in AD 2016-25-01 is different from the unsafe condition identified in this final rule. AD 2016-25-01 addresses uncommanded autopilot engagement on the ground, potentially resulting in incorrect stabilizer trim adjustment during takeoff. This final rule addresses uncommanded altitude display changes in the MCP while the autopilot is engaged. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Requests To Revise the Estimated Costs of Compliance

Cathay Pacific Airlines asked why operators are being charged for the parts and labor associated with compliance with the proposed AD if the unsafe condition is the result of a design flaw (the problematic MCP-770 part) that could not be detected during flight tests or the design phase. We infer that the commenter is requesting that either the estimated costs of the proposed AD be revised or the manufacturer's warranty coverage.

We do not agree to revise the cost estimates. We do not control the manufacturer's warranty coverage. We have identified an unsafe condition that must be corrected to ensure that airplanes are operated in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation Regulations. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue.

UAL requested a revision to the estimated costs of the proposed AD because the estimated costs provided are too low. UAL stated that only MCP-770C can be upgraded and all other MCP series parts would need to be replaced. UAL observed that its estimated fleet cost would exceed $8,000,000.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. We acknowledge that the cost estimate does not include the cost of a new MCP. The estimated costs in the NPRM were based on data provided in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, dated March 3, 2016. The cost section of the NPRM indicated that we have received no definitive data regarding the cost of a new MCP. Although UAL provided a cost estimate for its fleet, we still have not received a definitive cost estimate for a new MCP. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, dated March 3, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing MCP part with a new MCP part having a different part number, in the glareshield in the flight compartment. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 203 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Replacement 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 Up to $5,8001 Up to $5,970 Up to $1,211,910.1 1 Since we have received no definitive data regarding the cost of a new MCP we have provided costs for the upgrade (modified part) only.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-15-01  The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18961; Docket No. FAA-2016-9501; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-137-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, dated March 3, 2016.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22; Auto flight.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded altitude display changes in the mode control panel (MCP) altitude window. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded changes to the MCP selected altitude; such uncommanded changes could result in incorrect spatial separation between airplanes, midair collision, or controlled flight into terrain.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement of MCP

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the existing MCP part with a new MCP part having a different part number, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, dated March 3, 2016.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Frank Carreras, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6442; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, dated March 3, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-14929 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9516; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-053-AD; Amendment 39-18964; AD 2017-15-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This AD was prompted by wire harness chafing on the electro-mechanical actuators (EMAs) for certain spoilers due to insufficient separation with adjacent structure. This AD requires replacement of affected EMAs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9516.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9516; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6479; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2016 (81 FR 95536) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by wire harness chafing on the EMAs for certain spoilers due to insufficient separation with adjacent structure. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of affected EMAs. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing and consequent wire damage that could result in a potential source of ignition in the flammable leakage zone and a consequent fire or explosion.

    Comments

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

    Support for the NPRM

    Boeing indicated its support for the intent of the NPRM.

    Request To Reduce Compliance Time

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International, (ALPA), supported the intent of the NPRM but asked that the compliance time in the proposed AD be reduced from 40 to 20 months. The commenter stated that the NPRM's 40-month compliance time, combined with the release date of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270030-00, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2015, would provide operators in excess of 56 months to comply. ALPA stated that it believes that operators have had sufficient time to schedule the proposed maintenance procedures, and recommended the shorter compliance time, which would provide an overall timeframe of 36 months from the release date of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270030-00, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2015, to resolve the issue.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request to reduce the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of replacement of the EMAs. Further, we arrived at the proposed compliance time with the manufacturer's concurrence. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the EMA can be replaced in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. Most ADs, including this one, permit operators to accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time; therefore, an operator may choose to replace the EMA at any time within the 40-month compliance time. If additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

    Request To Extend Compliance Time

    United Airlines (UA) asked that the compliance time in the proposed AD be extended. UA stated that considering the extensive ground time required for implementing the corrective action, additional time is necessary.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. UA did not suggest an alternative compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the replacement. In consideration of these items, we have determined that a 40-month compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the replacements to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270030-00, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing affected EMAs with new EMAs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 19 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts
  • cost
  • Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • EMA replacement 32 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,720 per EMA replacement 1 $0 $2,720 $51,680 1 Parts cost is not included in the service information, but Boeing has indicated that existing parts can be modified to become the new parts.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-15-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18964; Docket No. FAA-2016-9516; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-053-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270030-00, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by wire harness chafing on the electro-mechanical actuators (EMAs) for certain spoilers due to insufficient separation with adjacent structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing and consequent wire damage that could result in a potential source of ignition in the flammable leakage zone and a consequent fire or explosion.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) EMA Replacement

    Within 40 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the EMAs with new EMAs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270030-00, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2015.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sean Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6479; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270030-00, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 12, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15121 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9572; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-151-AD; Amendment 39-18963; AD 2017-15-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-08-02 which applied to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes. AD 2014-08-02 required modifying the profile of stringer run-outs of both wings, including a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the fastener holes for defects, and repairs if necessary. This new AD retains the actions required by AD 2014-08-02 and revises the compliance times. This AD was prompted by further analysis in the context of widespread fatigue damage (WFD), which concluded that shorter compliance times are necessary to meet specified requirements to address WFD. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 25, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of May 21, 2014 (79 FR 21392, April 16, 2014).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9572.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9572; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-08-02, Amendment 39-17826 (79 FR 21392, April 16, 2014) (“AD 2014-08-02”). AD 2014-08-02 applied to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2017 (82 FR 13405). The NPRM was prompted by further analysis in the context of WFD, which concluded that a shorter compliance time is necessary to meet specified requirements to address WFD. The NPRM proposed to continue to require modifying the profile of stringer run-outs of both wings, including a high frequency eddy current inspection of the fastener holes for defects, and repairs if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require a revised compliance time for these actions. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the bottom wing skin stringers, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0174, dated August 30, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During full-scale fatigue testing, cracks were detected in the bottom wing skin stringers at Rib 14. In addition, operators have also reported finding cracks in the same area on in-service aeroplanes.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could impair the structural integrity of the wings.

    Additional analysis results showed that the improved design of the stringer run-out was necessary for aeroplanes operating beyond the Extended Service Goal 1.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6046 Revision 01 to provide modification instructions, and EASA issued AD 2013-0008 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-08-02], to require the removal of the stringer end run-out plate at stringer 19 on the bottom wing skin and a re-profiling modification of the stringers 10, 11, 12, 17 and 19.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, further analysis in the context of Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD), concluded that a threshold reduction is necessary to meet the WFD requirements. Consequently, Airbus revised SB A300-57-6046 accordingly (now at Revision 03).

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0008R1, which is superseded, but reduces the modification threshold, and introduces a pre-mod High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9572.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. FedEx Express had no objection to the NPRM.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015. The service information describes procedures to modify the profile of stringer run-outs of both wings, including a HFEC inspection of the fastener holes for defects, and repairs. It also describes new compliance times for completing the modifications. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2014-08-02, and retained in this AD, take about 63 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $2,360 per product. Based on these figures (accounting for updated work-hour and parts cost estimates), the estimated cost of this AD on U.S. operators is $7,715 per product.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for any on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-08-02, Amendment 39-17826 (79 FR 21392, April 16, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2017-15-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-18963; Docket No. FAA-2016-9572; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-151-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-08-02, Amendment 39-17826 (79 FR 21392, April 16, 2014) (“AD 2014-08-02”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300-B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, and Model A300-B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10324 or 10325 has been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that certain wing skin stringers are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the bottom wing skin stringers, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Modification of Rib 14, With Revised Compliance Time and Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-08-02, with revised compliance times and service information. At the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, whichever occurs earlier, modify the profile of stringer run-outs at rib 14 of both wings, including a high frequency eddy current inspection of the fastener holes for defects and all applicable repairs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 02, dated June 21, 2013; or Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015; except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable repairs before further flight. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015, may be used.

    (1) Before the accumulation of 42,500 total flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles after May 21, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-08-02), whichever occurs later.

    (2) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (h) Retained Exception to the Service Information, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-08-02, with revised service information.

    (1) Where Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 02, dated June 21, 2013, specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, this AD requires contacting the Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent) for repair instructions and doing those repairs before further flight.

    (2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

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

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, dated January 18, 1994, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 01, dated April 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 02, dated June 21, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2014-08-02.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0174, dated August 30, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9572.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

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

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 25, 2017.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated February 4, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 11, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15119 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9480; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-13] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Morgantown, WV AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area by removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status at Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, Morgantown, WV, and updating the airport's geographic coordinates. Also, this action updates the geographic coordinates of the airport listed in Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E 700 foot airspace. This action enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace at Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, Morgantown, WV, in support of IFR operations at the airport.

    History

    On April 7, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 16958) Docket No. FAA-2016-9480, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, Morgantown, WV, by removing the NOTAM part-time status of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted in the associated Class D and E airspace. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    This action also makes an editorial change to the associated Class D and E airspace legal descriptions removing the words “(previously called Airport/Facility Directory). Except for this change, the rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E Airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, Morgantown, WV, by eliminating the NOTAM information from the regulatory text that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” This action also amends Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Additionally, this action removes the words “(previously called Airport/Facility Directory)” from the associated Class D and E airspace legal descriptions.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA WV D Morgantown, WV [Amended] Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, WV (Lat. 39°38′37′′ N., long. 79°55′03′′ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,700 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. AEA WV E2 Morgantown, WV [Amended] Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, WV (Lat. 39°38′37″ N., long. 79°55′03″ W.)

    Within a 4-mile radius of Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA WV E4 Morgantown, WV [Amended] Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, WV (Lat. 39°38′37″ N., long. 79°55′03″ W.) Morgantown VORTAC (Lat. 39°33′24″ N., long. 79°51′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile either side of the Morgantown VORTAC 332° radial extending from the 4-mile radius of Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field to the Morgantown VORTAC.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA WV E5 Morgantown, WV [Amended] Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, WV (Lat. 39°38′37″ N., long. 79°55′03″ W.) Morgantown VORTAC (Lat. 39°33′24″ N., long. 79°51′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, and within 3 miles each side of the Morgantown VORTAC 152° radial extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.8 miles southeast of the VORTAC, and within 3 miles west of the Morgantown VORTAC 336° radial clockwise to 3 miles east of Morgantown Municipal Airport-Walter L. Bill Hart Field north localizer course extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 15.1 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 10, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15286 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0284; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-5] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Orange City, IA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies Class E airspace extending up to 700 feet above the surface at Orange City Municipal Airport, Orange City, IA. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Orange City non directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action enhances the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, September 14, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Walter Tweedy (prepared by Ron Laster), Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5802.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending up to and including 700 feet above the surface area at Orange City Municipal Airport.

    History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 19194, April 26, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0284 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Orange City Municipal Airport, Orange City, IA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within the 6.4-mile radius of Orange City Municipal Airport, Orange City, IA, and within 2 miles each side of the 165° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.1 miles south of the airport. The segment each side of the 172° bearing from the Orange City NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.4 miles south of the airport is removed due to the decommissioning of the NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The airport coordinates are amended to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE IA E5 Orange City, IA [Amended] Orange City Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 42°59′20″ N., long. 96°03′45″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Orange City Municipal Airport and within 2 miles each side of the 165° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.1 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 12, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15273 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9488; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-18] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Albany, GA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area by eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part time status for Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, Albany, GA. This action corrects differences between the descriptions of Class D airspace and Class E surface areas and their associated Class E surface area extensions. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, Albany, GA.

    History

    On April 25, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (82 FR 19008) Docket No. FAA-2016-9488, to amend Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area at Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, Albany, GA, by eliminating the NOTAM part-time status information. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E Airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, Albany, GA, by eliminating the NOTAM information from the regulatory text that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” This action brings the airspace description for the airport listed in FAA Order 7400.11A in line with the airspace hours listed in the applicable Chart Supplement.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. ASO GA E4 Albany-Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, GA [Amended] Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, GA (Lat. 31°32′08″ N., long. 84°11′40″ W.) Pecan VORTAC (Lat. 31°39′19″ N., long. 84°17′35″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.3 miles each side of Pecan VORTAC 143° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of Southwest Georgia Regional Airport to 1 mile southeast of the VORTAC.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 13, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15289 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0070; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-2] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Fayetteville, TN AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E airspace upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Fayetteville, TN, as the Kelso non-directional radio beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration at Fayetteville Municipal Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on-line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 1 (800) 647-8927, or (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fayetteville Municipal Airport, Fayetteville, TN, for the continued safety, and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM in the Federal Register (82 FR 16957, April 7, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0070 proposing to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fayetteville Municipal Airport, Fayetteville, TN, due to the decommissioning of the Kelso NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. The NPRM also proposed amendment of the airport's geographic coordinates. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Fayetteville Municipal Airport, Fayetteville, TN, due to the decommissioning of the Kelso NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Therefore, these changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are amended to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO TN E5 Fayetteville, TN [Amended] Fayetteville Municipal Airport, TN (Lat. 35°03′35″ N., long. 86°33′50″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Fayetteville Municipal Airport and within 4 miles each side of the 014° bearing from airport, extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.1-miles north of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 11, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15284 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0071; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-3] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Laurel, MS AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E airspace at Laurel, MS, as the Tallahala non-directional radio beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration at Hesler-Noble Field Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 1 (800) 647-8927, or (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.4-mile radius of Hesler-Noble Field Airport, Laurel, MS, in support of IFR operations at the airport.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR 16953, April 7, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0071 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hesler-Noble Field Airport, Laurel, MS, due to the decommissioning of the Tallahala NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, thereby removing the extension airspace. The NPRM also advised of the proposed amendment of the airport's geographic coordinates. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 8.4-mile (increased from a 7.5-mile) radius of Hesler-Noble Field Airport, Laurel, MS due to the decommissioning of the Tallahala NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. The Tallahala NDB is removed from the legal description, thereby removing the 5-mile wide segment from the Tallahala NDB extending from the current 7.5-mile radius to 7 miles northwest of the NDB (excluding that airspace within the Hattiesburg, MS Class E airspace area). The geographic coordinates of the airport are amended to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. This action ensures the continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO MS E5 Laurel, MS [Amended] Laurel, Hesler-Noble Field Airport, MS (Lat. 31°40′23″ N., long. 89°10′22″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.4-mile radius of Hesler-Noble Field Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 11, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15274 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0195; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-14] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Medford, OR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, Medford, OR. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the PUMIE locator outer marker and removal of the Rogue Valley VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) from the airspace description as the FAA transitions from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. Also, this action updates the airport's geographic coordinates for the Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, Medford, OR, in support of the transition from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation.

    History

    On April 13, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 17776) Docket FAA-2017-0195, a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, remove Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, Medford, OR, and update the geographic coordinates of the airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D and Class E surface area airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area, modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, removing Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, Medford, OR, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport. This action is necessary due to the proposed decommissioning of the PUMIE locator outer marker and for the safety and management of aircraft within the national airspace system as the FAA transitions from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation.

    Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area northeast of the airport is reduced to a 4-mile wide segment (from 5.5 miles wide) extending to 11 miles northwest (from 17.5 miles northwest) of the airport, and the segment to the southeast is reduced to a 5-mile wide segment (from 8 miles), extending to 9 miles (from 19.4 miles) southeast of the airport. This airspace redesign is due to the removal of the Rogue Valley VORTAC navigation aid.

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is reduced northeast, southeast, and southwest of the airport to only that area necessary to contain IFR departures within 1,500 feet of the surface and IFR departures until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. Additionally, the Class E airspace area extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface designated for Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport is removed, as this airspace duplicates the Rogue Valley Class E en route airspace area.

    Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to match the FAA's current aeronautical database. Additionally, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace legal descriptions.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ANM OR D Medford, OR [Modified] Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, OR (Lat. 42°22′27″ N., long. 122°52′25″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,800 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002  Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM OR E2 Medford, OR [Modified] Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, OR (Lat. 42°22′27″ N., long. 122°52′25″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-mile radius of Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004  Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. ANM OR E4 Medford, OR [Modified] Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, OR (Lat. 42°22′27″ N., long. 122°52′25″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.5 miles each side of the 159° bearing from the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 9 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 339° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 11 miles northwest of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005  Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM OR E5 Medford, OR [Modified] Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, OR (Lat. 42°22′27″ N., long. 122°52′25″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9-mile radius of Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 159° bearing from the airport extending from the 9-mile radius to 18.5 miles southeast of the airport, and within 9 miles west and 5.5 miles east of the 352° bearing from the airport extending from the 9-mile radius of the airport to 26 miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 11, 2017. Sam S.L. Shrimpton, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15290 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0442; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASO-12] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ashburn, GA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ashburn, GA, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Turner County Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR 24273, May 26, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2013-0442 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Turner County Airport, Ashburn, GA, due to the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Turner County Airport, Ashburn, GA. This action provides the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at Turner County Airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005  Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO GA E5 Ashburn, GA [New] Turner County Airport, GA (Lat. 31°41′15″ N., long. 83°37′59″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Turner County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 11, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15276 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165 [USCG-2015-0242] Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of expired temporary rules issued.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This notice lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the Federal Register was not possible.

    DATES:

    This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between August 2014 and September 2015, and were terminated before they could be published in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on this notice contact Yeoman First Class David Hager, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary, for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas, and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between August 2014 and September 2015 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the list below.

    Docket No. Location Type Effective date USCG-2014-0963 Pago Pago, American Samoa Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 11/11/2014 USCG-2014-1027 Sabine, TX Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 11/28/2014 USCG-2014-1040 Rockwood, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/6/2014 USCG-2014-1049 New Orleans, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/31/2014 USCG-2014-1065 Baton Rouge, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/31/2014 USCG-2014-1064 Gulfport, MS Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/7/2015 USCG-2014-1042 New Orleans, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/8/2015 USCG-2015-0012 Pennington, AL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/11/2015 USCG-2015-0054 St. Claire County, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/25/2015 USCG-2015-0029 Pascagoula, MS Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/30/2015 USCG-2015-0477 Santa Barbara, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 5/27/2015 USCG-2015-0263 Sabine, TX Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 5/27/2015 USCG-2015-0494 St.Louis, MO Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 5/30/2015 USCG-2015-0495 St. Louis, MO Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 5/30/2015 USCG-2015-0514 Louis, MO Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/2/2015 USCG-2015-0264 Sabine, TX Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/3/2015 USCG-2015-0535 St. Louis, MO Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/7/2015 USCG-2015-0553 Louisville, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/14/2015 USCG-2015-0265 Ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, Orange, TX and Lake Charles Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/15/2015 USCG-2015-0125 Wantagh, NY Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 6/17/2015 USCG-2015-0579 Henry, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/18/2015 USCG-2015-0523 Chester, WV Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/20/2015 USCG-2015-0517 San Francisco, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/20/2015 USCG-2015-0625 City of Aurora, IN Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/27/2015 USCG-2015-0372 Cumberland City, TN Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/27/2015 USCG-2015-0387 Beaver, PA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/27/2015 USCG-2015-0133 Chattanooga, TN Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 6/28/2015 USCG-2015-0545 Port Boston Zone Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/28/2015 USCG-2015-0583 Incline Village, NV Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 6/30/2015 USCG-2015-0233 Lake Tahoe, NV Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/1/2015 USCG-2015-0606 Los Angeles, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/2/2015 USCG-2015-0522 Perth Amboy, NJ Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/2/2015 USCG-2015-0237 Kings Beach, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0607 Long Beach, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0608 Santa Catalina Island, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0589 Richmond Harbor, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0283 San Francisco, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0575 Olcott, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0599 Morris, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0587 Cornucopia, WI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0639 Burlington, VT Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0538 Laplace, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0547 New Albany, IN Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0541 Louisville, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0440 Charleston, WV Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0550 Madison, IN Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0557 Long Island Port Zone Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/3/2015 USCG-2015-0324 Sea Isle City, NJ Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0239 Glenbrook, NV Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0588 Madeline Island, WI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0546 Miami, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0327 Dewey Beach, DE Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0481 Manhattan, NY Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0426 Oyester Bay, NY Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0528 7th Coast Guard District Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0255 Lake Union, WA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0254 Friday Harbor, WA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0437 Manteo, NC Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0609 Long Beach, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0610 Newport Beach, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0399 Pittsburgh, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0581 Vallejo, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0640 Berkeley, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0585 Duluth, MN Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0598 Neenah, WI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0573 Cleveland, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0597 Cedar Point, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0596 Marbledhead, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0586 Bayfield, WI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0577 Buffalo, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0352 Castine, ME Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0449 Cincinnati, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0367 Point Pleasant, WV Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0560 Owensboro, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0602 Jefferson City, MO Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0542 Evansville, IN Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0364 Greenup, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0391 Middleport, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0516 Chester, WV Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0530 Lake Michigan Zone Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0444 Paducah, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0530 Lake Michigan Zone Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/4/2015 USCG-2015-0059 Louisville, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/5/2015 USCG-2015-0600 Palos Heights, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/8/2015 USCG-2015-0638 San Diego, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/10/2015 USCG-2015-0617 Grosse Pointe Shores, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/10/2015 USCG-2015-0219 Cincinnati, OH Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/10/2015 USCG-2015-0620 Oswego, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/11/2015 USCG-2015-0645 Mystic, CT Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/11/2015 USCG-2015-0307 Cincinnati, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/11/2015 USCG-2015-0644 Bellevue, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/11/2015 USCG-2015-0664 Wyandotte, MI Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/12/2015 USCG-2015-0010 Florence, AL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/12/2015 USCG-2015-0680 Philadelphia, PA Security Zones (Part 165) 7/14/2015 USCG-2015-0353 Castine, ME Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/14/2015 USCG-2015-0605 Augusta, GA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/16/2015 USCG-2012-1036 Port Long Island Sound Zone Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/17/2015 USCG-2015-0679 Lorain, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/18/2015 USCG-2015-0354 South Bristol, ME Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/18/2015 USCG-2015-0658 Brewerton, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/18/2015 USCG-2015-0675 Brooklyn, NY Drawbridges (Part 117) 7/18/2015 USCG-2015-0425 Portland, ME Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/18/2015 USCG-2015-0679 Lorain, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/18/2015 USCG-2015-0396 Oakmont, PA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/18/2015 USCG-2015-0661 Cleveland, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/19/2015 USCG-2015-0702 Galveston, TX Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/20/2015 USCG-2015-0685 Pittsburgh, PA Security Zones (Part 165) 7/21/2015 USCG-2015-0443 Milwaukee, WI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/23/2015 USCG-2015-0611 Ogdensburg, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/24/2015 USCG-2015-0700 Grafton, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/24/2015 USCG-2015-0660 Oswego, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/25/2015 USCG-2015-0592 Pacific Grove, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/25/2015 USCG-2015-0302 Nashville, TN Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 7/26/2015 USCG-2015-0657 Queens, NY Drawbridges (Part 117) 7/27/2015 USCG-2010-0062 Seattle, WA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/29/2015 USCG-2015-0377 New Orleans, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/30/2015 USCG-2015-0214 LaPointe, WI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/1/2015 USCG-2015-0714 Mentor, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/2/2015 USCG-2015-0281 Cincinnati, OH Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 8/2/2015 USCG-2014-0794 Lakebay, WA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/4/2015 USCG-2015-0681 National Harbor, MD Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/6/2015 USCG-2015-0761 Chicago, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/6/2015 USCG-2015-0709 San Diego, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/7/2015 USCG-2015-0759 Chicago, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/8/2015 USCG-2015-0721 Port Huron, MI Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 8/8/2015 USGC-2015-0622 Perry, WA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/8/2015 USCG-2015-0762 Sylvan Beach, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/9/2015 USCG-2015-0795 Cedar Point, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/13/2015 USCG-2015-0652 Havre de Grace, MD Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/14/2015 USCG-2015-0724 San Diego, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/15/2015 USCG-2015-0530 Algoma, WI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/16/2015 USCG-2015-0785 Detriot, MI Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 8/21/2015 USCG-2015-0707 Huntsville, AL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 8/23/2015 USCG-2015-0775 South Port, ME Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/28/2015 USCG-2015-0766 Petaluma, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/1/2015 USCG-2015-0525 Virginia Beach, VA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/1/2015 USCG-2015-0592 South Lake Tahoe, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/4/2015 USCG-2012-1036 Port Long Island Sound Zone Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/5/2015 USGC-2015-0771 Boston Harbor, MA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/5/2015 USCG-2015-0811 Prince William County, VA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/5/2015 USCG-2015-0770 Port Boston Zone Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/5/2015 USCG-2015-0821 Miami Beach, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/5/2015 USCG-2015-0842 Hood River, OR Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/7/2015 USCG-2015-0857 Dana Point, CA Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/11/2015 USCG-2014-0876 Port Huron, MI Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/12/2015 USCG-2015-0844 Pasco, WA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/12/2015 USCG-2015-0834 Buffalo, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/13/2015 USCG-2015-0868 Portland, OR Drawbridges (Part 117) 9/13/2015 USCG-2015-0816 Long Island Port Zone Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/15/2015 USCG-2015-0890 San Pedro, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/17/2015 USCG-2015-0683 Cocoa Beach, FL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/18/2015 USCG-2015-0881 San Pedro, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/18/2015 USCG-2015-0561 Miami, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/20/2015 USCG-2015-0843 Portland, OR Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/20/2015 USCG-2015-0897 Point Mugu, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/25/2015 USCG-2015-0845 Portland, OR Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/27/2015 Katia Kroutil, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15373 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0212] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor), Between the Towns of Duluth, MN and Superior, WI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is modifying the regulations that govern the drawbridges over the St. Louis River at Duluth-Superior Harbor. This waterway borders Minnesota and Wisconsin and is listed under Minnesota as St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor) and under Wisconsin as Duluth-Superior Harbor (St. Louis River) in the CFR. This rule affects both regulations. The owner of the Burlington Northern Grassy Point Railroad Bridge at mile 5.44 requested the regulation be updated to include permanent winter operating schedule. This rule also aligns river mile numbers with the United States Coast Pilot and deletes bridges from the regulations that were removed from the waterway and makes the regulation easier to read and less confusing to the mariner.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type [USCG-2017-0212]. In the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LWD Low Water Datum NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 19, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor), between the towns of Duluth, MN and Superior, WI, in the Federal Register (82 FR 18407). We did not receive any comments on this proposed rule.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499. The current regulations for St. Louis River drawbridges (33 CFR 117.669 and 33 CFR 117.1083) includes the operating schedules for the Burlington Northern Grassy Point Railroad Bridge at mile 5.44, the Grassy Point Bridge at mile 8.0, the Arrow Head Bridge at mile 8.7, and the Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range combined Railroad and Highway Bridge, also known as the Oliver Bridge, at mile 13.91.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a 30 day comment period in the Federal Register and solicited comments through the Ninth Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners for the same 30 days and we did not receive any comments.

    Title 33 of the Code of Regulations part 117 lists drawbridge regulations by state. The St. Louis River is the border between Minnesota (listed under 33 CFR 117.669) and Wisconsin (listed under 33 CFR 117.1083). The St. Louis River is listed by state separately under both sections of the CFR. This rule will revise 33 CFR 117.1083 (under Wisconsin) to direct readers to 33 CFR 117.669 (under Minnesota) to simplify the rule and make it easier to reference by mariners.

    The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule of the The Burlington Northern Grassy Point Railroad Bridge at mile 5.44 to include authorized permanent winter hours. Mariners will still be able to request bridge openings with 12-hours advance notice during times of light traffic volume on the river due to ice formation that typically prevents most vessel navigation in the channel from December 15 through March 15 each year.

    The bridges listed in the regulations as the Grassy Point Bridge at mile 8.0 and the Arrow Head Bridge at mile 8.7, respectively, have been removed from the waterway and will be removed from the regulations.

    The Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range combined Railroad and Highway Bridge, also known as the Oliver Bridge, at mile 13.91, will be renamed the Canadian National Combined Railroad and Highway Bridge to reflect the current owner and use. The authorization to remain in the closed position will continue as before, but the drawbridge must return to operable condition when notified by the District Commander to do so.

    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 protesters.

    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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs 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 (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice during the winter when ice typically prevents vessels from transiting the waterway and vessel traffic is at its lowest. This rule will also align river mile numbers with the United States Coast Pilot and delete bridges from the regulations that have been removed from the waterway and make the regulation easier to read and less confusing to the mariner.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because the bridge will open with advance notice.

    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, above.

    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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    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.

    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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise § 117.669 to read as follows:
    § 117.669 St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor).

    (a) The draw of the Burlington Northern Grassy Point railroad Bridge, mile 5.44, shall open on signal except that, from December 15 through March 15 the draw shall open if at least 12-hour notice is given.

    (b) The draw of the Canadian National Combined Railroad and Highway Bridge, mile 13.91, need not be opened for the passage of vessels. The owner shall return the draw to operable condition within a reasonable time when notified by the District Commander to do so.

    3. Revise § 117.1083 to read as follows:
    § 117.1083 Duluth-Superior Harbor (St. Louis River).

    See § 117.669 St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor), listed under Minnesota.

    Dated: June 15, 2017. N.A. Bartolotta, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, Acting.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15371 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0594] Safety Zone; Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks, Wheeling, WV AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks on the Ohio River mile 90.0 to 90.5. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life and to protect vessels from the hazards associated with the “Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks” land-based fireworks display. During the enforcement period, entry into the safety zone is prohibited for all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, line 14, will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 10:30 p.m., on July 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual “Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks” land based fireworks display, listed in the regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, line 14 from 9 p.m. through 10:30 p.m., on July 22, 2017. Our Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones, § 165.801, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Ohio River, Mile 90.0 to 90.5. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

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

    Dated: June 28, 2017. F. Smith, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, Acting.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15370 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. PTO-T-2017-0025] RIN 0651-AD22 Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice; Clarification AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2016 a final rule, which became effective on January 14, 2017, revising the Rules of Practice before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. This document clarifies certain provisions of the rules of practice regarding the deadlines for filing motions to compel discovery, motions to test the sufficiency of responses or objections to requests for admission, and motions for summary judgment. The clarification promotes clarity and reflects ongoing and current practice, in keeping with the goals of efficiency and predictability in the procedure and process of trial cases.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 21, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cheryl Butler, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-4259.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The USPTO issues this final rule to clarify the latest time in an inter partes proceeding that certain motions may be filed. The USPTO's October 7, 2016 final rule revising the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice (81 FR 69950) (published under RIN 0651-AC35), effective January 14, 2017, required that any motion to compel discovery, § 2.120(f)(1), motion to test the sufficiency of responses or objections to requests for admission, § 2.120(i)(1), or motion for summary judgment, § 2.127(e)(1), be filed prior to the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as set or as reset. The USPTO now amends the rules of practice to make clear that such motions must be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set or as reset.

    The amendments promote clarity in the regulations and further the objectives of the January 14, 2017 final rule. They advance the goals of efficiency of inter partes proceedings by streamlining discovery and pretrial procedure, particularly by signaling that the trial phase of the proceedings commences with the deadline for the first pretrial disclosure, by which juncture all discovery disputes will have been resolved or at least brought to the attention of the Board and all parties.

    Discussion of Rule Changes Discovery

    The USPTO is amending the third sentence of § 2.120(f)(1) to indicate that a motion to compel discovery must be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set or as reset.

    The USPTO is amending the first sentence of § 2.120(i)(1) to indicate that a motion to determine and test the sufficiency of an answer or objection to a request for admission must be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set or as reset.

    Motions

    The USPTO is amending the second sentence of § 2.127(e)(1) to indicate that a motion for summary judgment must be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set or as reset.

    Rulemaking Considerations

    Administrative Procedure Act: The changes in this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure and/or interpretive rules. See Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow Communications Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims.).

    Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the rule changes are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206 (2015) (Notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency “issue[s] an initial interpretive rule” nor “when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule.”); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), does not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))).

    Similarly, the 30-day delay in effectiveness is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). As discussed above, this rulemaking involves rules of agency practice and procedure, merely consisting of clarifications to the procedure and timing of filing certain motions in inter partes proceedings. These changes are procedural in nature and will have no impact on the substantive evaluation of a trademark application or registration.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    This rulemaking involves changes to a rule of agency practice and procedure in matters before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The changes provide greater clarity as to certain deadlines in Board proceedings. This rule does not alter any substantive criteria used to decide cases.

    This rule will apply to all persons appearing before the Board. Applicants for a trademark and other parties to Board proceedings are not industry-specific and may consist of individuals, small businesses, non-profit organizations, and large corporations. The Office does not collect or maintain statistics in Board cases on small- versus large-entity parties, and this information would be required in order to determine the number of small entities that would be affected by this rule.

    No additional burden is imposed by this rule change. This rule will benefit all the parties to proceedings by increasing certainty, efficiency and clarity in the process, and streamlining the procedures. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Executive Order 12866: This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule changes; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) provided the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the regulatory process, including soliciting the views of those likely affected prior to issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, and provided online access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes, to the extent applicable.

    Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs): This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Order 13132: This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

    Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final covered rule, the Office will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this rule are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this rule change is not covered because it is not expected to result in a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549) requires that the Office consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. This rule involves information collection requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549). The collections of information involved in this rulemaking have been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers 0651-0040 and 0651-0054. This rulemaking does not add any additional information requirements or fees for parties before the Board, and therefore, it does not change the information collection burdens approved under the OMB control numbers 0651-0040 and 0651-0054.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

    For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office is amending part 2 of title 37 as follows:

    PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10(c) of Pub. L. 112-29, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 2.120 by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (i)(1) to read as follows:
    § 2.120 Discovery.

    (f) * * *

    (1) If a party fails to make required initial disclosures or expert testimony disclosure, or fails to designate a person pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) or Rule 31(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or if a party, or such designated person, or an officer, director or managing agent of a party fails to attend a deposition or fails to answer any question propounded in a discovery deposition, or any interrogatory, or fails to produce and permit the inspection and copying of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing, the party entitled to disclosure or seeking discovery may file a motion to compel disclosure, a designation, or attendance at a deposition, or an answer, or production and an opportunity to inspect and copy. A motion to compel initial disclosures must be filed within thirty days after the deadline therefor and include a copy of the disclosure(s), if any, and a motion to compel an expert testimony disclosure must be filed prior to the close of the discovery period. A motion to compel discovery must be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set or as reset. A motion to compel discovery shall include a copy of the request for designation of a witness or of the relevant portion of the discovery deposition; or a copy of the interrogatory with any answer or objection that was made; or a copy of the request for production, any proffer of production or objection to production in response to the request, and a list and brief description of the documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things that were not produced for inspection and copying. A motion to compel initial disclosures, expert testimony disclosure, or discovery must be supported by a showing from the moving party that such party or the attorney therefor has made a good faith effort, by conference or correspondence, to resolve with the other party or the attorney therefor the issues presented in the motion but the parties were unable to resolve their differences. If issues raised in the motion are subsequently resolved by agreement of the parties, the moving party should inform the Board in writing of the issues in the motion which no longer require adjudication.

    (i) * * *

    (1) Any motion by a party to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection, including testing the sufficiency of a general objection on the ground of excessive number, to a request made by that party for an admission must be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period, as originally set or as reset. The motion shall include a copy of the request for admission and any exhibits thereto and of the answer or objection. The motion must be supported by a written statement from the moving party showing that such party or the attorney therefor has made a good faith effort, by conference or correspondence, to resolve with the other party or the attorney therefor the issues presented in the motion and has been unable to reach agreement. If issues raised in the motion are subsequently resolved by agreement of the parties, the moving party should inform the Board in writing of the issues in the motion which no longer require adjudication.

    3. Amend § 2.127 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
    § 2.127 Motions.

    (e)(1) A party may not file a motion for summary judgment until the party has made its initial disclosures, except for a motion asserting claim or issue preclusion or lack of jurisdiction by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. A motion for summary judgment must be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period, as originally set or as reset. A motion under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if filed in response to a motion for summary judgment, shall be filed within thirty days from the date of service of the summary judgment motion. The time for filing a motion under Rule 56(d) will not be extended or reopened. If no motion under Rule 56(d) is filed, a brief in response to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed within thirty days from the date of service of the motion unless the time is extended by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or upon order of the Board. If a motion for an extension is denied, the time for responding to the motion for summary judgment may remain as specified under this section. A reply brief, if filed, shall be filed within twenty days from the date of service of the brief in response to the motion. The time for filing a reply brief will not be extended or reopened. The Board will consider no further papers in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Joseph D. Matal, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15346 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 447 Rules of Conduct for Postal Employees AGENCY:

    Postal Service.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service is revising its rules concerning employee conduct to specify the circumstances under which a nonbargaining employee may consume intoxicating beverages at an Officer Approved Event or a Postmaster General Approved event. This revision is intended to ensure that the relevant rules conform to the Postal Service's existing practices regarding this matter.

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 21, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David B. Ellis at (202) 268-2981, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Postal Service has determined that it is necessary to revise and update its regulations concerning employee conduct to reflect current practices concerning the possession and consumption of intoxicating beverages at officially-approved Postal Service events. The current rules, set forth at 39 CFR 447.21(e), are couched in general terms that fail to provide sufficient guidance to managers or employees.

    As revised, the general prohibition against consuming intoxicating beverages on duty is replaced with a rule that intoxicating beverages may be consumed by non-bargaining employees while on duty only if consumption occurs at certain events known as Officer Approved Events and Postmaster General Approved Events. This change was made because the current regulations' general prohibition against on-duty consumption is not in accordance with Postal Service practice. The Postal Service permits the consumption of intoxicating beverages by nonbargaining employees at business meetings, sales meetings, and recognition events. At such events, Postal Service nonbargaining employees may be on duty because the event occurs during their normal work hours and their attendance is authorized or required, or because they are hosting or performing Postal Service responsibilities at a recognition event, meeting with a customer, or otherwise conducting Postal Service business, whether or not the event occurs during the nonbargaining employee's normal work hours. Such events often involve the serving of food and beverages, whether during a meal or as refreshments at the event.

    The Postal Service, however, wishes to restrict the consumption of intoxicating beverages by nonbargaining employees at Postal Service events to appropriate situations for which executive approval has been obtained, whether or not the employees are on duty. As a result, any event where intoxicating beverages are served to Postal Service nonbargaining employees, whether they are on duty or off duty, must meet the requirements for an Officer Approved Event or a Postmaster General Approved Event. Among other things, this means that the consumption of intoxicating beverages at the event would require the express approval of a Postal Service Officer or the Postmaster General.

    The new regulations will not change the existing prohibitions against beginning work or returning to duty intoxicated. They will, however, impose a specific prohibition against becoming intoxicated at Officer Approved Events or Postmaster General Approved Events.

    The new regulations also clarify the conditions under which intoxicating beverages may be possessed or consumed on Postal Service premises. First, beer and wine would be permitted on Postal Service premises if approved by a Postal Service Officer in connection with an Officer Approved Event. Under current regulations, only the Postmaster General may approve the consumption of intoxicating beverages on Postal Service Premises. Second, intoxicating beverages other than beer and wine would never be permitted on Postal Service premises, regardless of whether the event is an Officer Approved Event or a Postmaster General Approved Event. Under current regulations, the Postmaster General may approve the consumption of intoxicating beverages other than beer and wine on Postal Service premises.

    List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 447

    Conflict of interests, Employee conduct, Government employees.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 447 as set forth below:

    PART 447—RULES OF CONDUCT FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 1. The authority citation for part 447 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 401.

    Subpart B—Employee Conduct 2. Revise § 447.21(e) to read as follows:
    § 447.21 Prohibited conduct.

    (e)(1) Except as provided in this paragraph, employees must not drink beer, wine, or other intoxicating beverages while on duty; begin work or return to duty intoxicated; or drink intoxicating beverages in a public place while in uniform. Employees found to be violating this policy may be subject to disciplinary action.

    (2) A nonbargaining employee may consume beer or wine at an Officer Approved Event. An Officer Approved Event means: A meeting of Postal Service employees convened by management, such as a working meal, an employee recognition event, or an employee appreciation event; or an event whose primary purpose is to interact with external individuals or entities, such as an industry conference, a sales meeting, or a supplier meeting; that in all cases is either attended by an Officer of the Postal Service who personally decides that the consumption of beer and wine by employees is appropriate, or with respect to which an Officer of the Postal Service has granted specific, written, and advance approval for the consumption of beer and wine by employees.

    (3) A nonbargaining employee may consume beer, wine, or other intoxicating beverages at a Postmaster General Approved Event. A Postmaster General Approved Event means any Postal Service-related event with respect to which the Postmaster General personally approves the consumption of beer, wine, or other intoxicating beverages.

    (4) No employee may become intoxicated while at an Officer Approved Event or a Postmaster General Approved Event. Except in connection with an Officer Approved Event or a Postmaster General Approved Event occurring at a Postal Service facility or premises, no employee shall have or bring any container of beer or wine into any Postal Service facility or premises, whether the container has been opened or not. Intoxicating beverages other than beer and wine may never be brought into any Postal Service facility or premises under any circumstances.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15311 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0656; FRL-9965-14-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Florida: Unnecessary Rule Removal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on February 20, 2013. The revision removes unnecessary and superseded rules from the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically, this revision removes non-regulatory introductory language, as well as a regulation that has been superseded by more stringent federal regulations. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective September 19, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 21, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0656 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:

    Sean Lakeman, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.103, DEP submitted for EPA to review and approve revisions to Florida's SIP under the CAA. The SIP revision removes four rules from the SIP that are unnecessary or have been superseded by federal regulations. The rules requested to be removed from the SIP are Rule 62-210.100, Florida Administrative Record (F.A.C.), “Purpose and Scope;” Rule 62-212.100, F.A.C., “Purpose and Scope;” Rule 62-296.407, F.A.C., “Portland Cement Plants;” and Rule 62-297.100, F.A.C., “Purpose and Scope.”

    II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    On February 20, 2013, the DEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA for review and approval. This SIP revision requests the removal of Rules 62-210.100, 62-212.100, and 62-297.100, F.A.C., each of which is titled “Purpose and Scope,” because they contain unnecessary, introductory language for the associated rule chapters. This introductory language serves no regulatory purpose and can be removed without being considered a relaxation of a regulation. The language merely introduces the regulatory chapter that follows and does not impose any regulatory requirements.

    This SIP revision also removes Rule 62-296.407, F.A.C., “Portland Cement Plants,” from the current SIP. Particulate matter (PM) emissions from Portland cement kilns and clinker coolers are more stringently regulated under 40 CFR part 60, subpart F (Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants), and 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry), than under Rule 62-296.407, F.A.C. The Florida DEP has been delegated the authority to implement and enforce both part 60, subpart F, see 55 FR 23077 (June 6, 1990) and 63 FR 50163 (September 21, 1998), and part 63, subpart LLL, see 40 CFR 63.99(a)(10). All Portland cement facilities in Florida originally subject only to Rule 62-296.407, F.A.C., have either been permanently shut down or modernized such that the emission limits set forth in the federal regulations currently apply. Actual PM emissions are expected to decrease in the future as facilities come into compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, as most recently amended on September 11, 2015. See 80 FR 54728.

    These changes are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and meet the regulatory requirements pertaining to SIPs. Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The revision of Rules 62-210.100, 62-212.100, 62-296.407, and 62-297.100 and, F.A.C., are approvable under section 110(l) because they would not interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    III. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the revision to the Florida SIP removing unnecessary rules from the SIP. EPA has evaluated Florida's February 20, 2013, submittal and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and is consistent with EPA policy.

    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 19, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 21, 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 19, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

    Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 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 19, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 7, 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
    § 52.520 [Amended]
    2. Section 52.520(c) is amended by removing the entries for “62-210.100,” “62-212.100,” “62-297.100,” and “62-296.407.”
    [FR Doc. 2017-15268 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-9964-73-OAR] RIN 2060-AG12 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 33 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Determination of acceptability.

    SUMMARY:

    This determination of acceptability expands the list of acceptable substitutes pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. This action lists as acceptable additional substitutes for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector and the cleaning solvents sector.

    DATES:

    This determination is applicable on July 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). All electronic documents in the docket are listed in the index at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket (Nos. A-91-42 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118), EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), William J. Clinton West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerald Wozniak by telephone at (202) 343-9624, by email at [email protected], or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier deliveries should be sent to the office location at 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for the evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well as other EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available at EPA's Ozone Layer Protection Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection including the SNAP portion at www.epa.gov/snap/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning B. Cleaning Solvents II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP Program B. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612 C. How the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work D. Additional Information About the SNAP Program Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes

    This action presents EPA's most recent decision to list as acceptable several substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector and the cleaning solvents sector. New substitutes are:

    • Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-134a in residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps (retrofit equipment);

    • Hydrofluoroether (HFE)-7300 in non-mechanical heat transfer systems (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-407H in retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-442A in retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-448A in multiple refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-449A in multiple refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-449B in multiple refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-452A in multiple refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-452C in multiple refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-453A in multiple refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-458A in multiple refrigeration and air-conditioning end-uses (new and retrofit equipment);

    • R-513A in residential dehumidifiers (new and retrofit equipment); and

    • HFE-7300 in electronics cleaning, metals cleaning, and precision cleaning end-uses.

    EPA's review of certain substitutes listed in this document is pending for other uses. Listing in the end-uses and applications in this document does not prejudge EPA's listings of these substitutes for other uses. For many of the substitutes being added through this document to the acceptable lists for specific end-uses, there are other listed substitutes for the end-use whose overall risk is comparable except that they have a lower risk in one SNAP criterion, for example toxicity or atmospheric effects. However, for the end-uses addressed in this action, those alternatives have not yet proven feasible in those specific end-uses. If alternatives that pose significantly less overall risk—either those currently listed or new alternatives added to the list—are demonstrated in the future as feasible for one or more of the relevant end-uses, EPA may evaluate whether to change the listing status of the substitutes addressed in this document.

    For copies of the full list of acceptable substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) in all industrial sectors, visit the SNAP portion of EPA's Ozone Layer Protection Web site at www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector. Substitutes listed as unacceptable; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; or acceptable, subject to use conditions are also listed in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

    The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail. Appendix A contains tables summarizing today's listing decisions for these new substitutes. The statements in the “Further Information” column in the tables provide additional information but are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the “Further Information” column may not include a comprehensive list of other legal obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although you are not required to follow recommendations in the “Further Information” column of the table to use a substitute consistent with section 612 of the CAA, some of these statements may refer to obligations that are enforceable or binding under federal or state programs other than the SNAP program. In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating practices in existing industry standards and/or building codes. When using these substitutes, EPA strongly encourages you to apply the information in this column. Many of these recommendations, if adopted, would not require significant changes to existing operating practices.

    You can find submissions to EPA for the substitutes listed in this document, as well as other materials supporting the decisions in this action, in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov.

    A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 1. HFC-134a

    EPA's decision: EPA finds HFC-134a acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps (retrofit equipment only)

    HFC-134a is also known as R-134a, or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2). EPA has previously listed HFC-134a as acceptable for use in residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps in new equipment, as well as in a number of other end-uses and sectors.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of HFC-134a in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. SNAP Submission Received February 3, 2014.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Substitute: HFC-134a”

    Environmental information: HFC-134a has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of approximately zero.1 Its global warming potential (GWP) is 1,430, and it has an atmospheric lifetime 2 of approximately 14 years.3 HFC-134a is excluded from the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    1 EPA assumes that compounds containing no chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero.

    2 We provide information on the atmospheric lifetime of individual chemicals where we have such information.

    3 Unless otherwise stated, all GWPs in this document are 100-year values from: IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor M., and Miller, H.L. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.

    Flammability information: HFC-134a is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat when inhaled. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established a workplace environmental exposure limit (WEEL) of 1,000 ppm as an eight-hour time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's Safety Data Sheet (SDS), in the American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: HFC-134a has an ODP of zero, comparable 4 to the other listed substitutes in this end-use, all with an ODP of zero.

    4 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430. All other substitutes listed as acceptable for residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps in retrofit equipment have higher GWPs than HFC-134a, such as R-407C, R-438A, and R-507A with GWPs ranging from 1,770 to 3,990.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds HFC-134a acceptable in the end-use listed above, because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

    2. HFE-7300 (1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane)

    EPA's decision: EPA finds HFE-7300 acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Non-mechanical heat transfer systems (new and retrofit equipment) 5

    5 Acceptable substitutes for organic Rankine cycle have typically been included through listings in the non-mechanical heat transfer end-use. EPA may review organic Rankine cycle applications separately in the future.

    HFE-7300 is also known as 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane (CAS Reg. No. 132182-92-4) and goes by the trade name of 3MTM NovecTM 7300 Engineered Fluid.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of HFE-7300 in Solvent Cleaning and Non-Mechanical Heat Transfer Systems. SNAP Submission Received October 13, 2016.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Heat Transfer: HFE-7300”

    Environmental information: HFE-7300 has an ODP of zero. The GWP of HFE-7300 is approximately 310, and it has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 3.8 years.6 HFE-7300 is excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. This substitute is subject to a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (40 CFR 721.10061) which requires notification to EPA before release of manufacturing, process, or use streams containing the substitute into the waters of the United States. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    6 3M (2016) as per IPCC 4th Assessment Report.

    Flammability information: HFE-7300 is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include eye irritation, skin irritation, and respiratory tract irritation. Ingestion of HFE-7300 may also be harmful. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    EPA anticipates that HFE-7300 will be used in a manner consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 100 ppm on an 8-hour TWA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: HFE-7300 has an ODP of zero, comparable 7 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in this same end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.00034.8

    7 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    8 Unless otherwise stated, all ODPs in this document are from EPA's regulations at appendix A to subpart A of 40 CFR part 82.

    For non-mechanical heat transfer systems, HFE-7300's GWP of 310 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as HFE-7100, HFC-245fa, and HFC-236fa with GWPs ranging from about 300 to 9,810. HFE-7300's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes in non-mechanical heat transfer systems, including C7 Fluoroketone, HFO-1234ze(E), and HFE-7200 with GWPs ranging from one to approximately 60.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds HFE-7300 acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

    3. R-407H

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-407H acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-407H, marketed under the trade name D407, is a weighted blend of 52.5 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); 32.5 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); and 15 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-407H in Retail Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units). SNAP Submission Received January 26, 2017.” EPA has performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-407H”

    Environmental information: R-407H has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-134a, HFC-32, and HFC-125, have GWPs of 1,430, 675, and 3,500, respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-407H has a GWP of about 1,500. The components of R-407H are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    Flammability information: R-407H, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    EPA anticipates that R-407H will be used in a manner consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-134a, HFC-32, and HFC-125, the components of R-407H. The manufacturer recommends an AEL of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL and the AIHA WEELs and to address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-407H has an ODP of zero, comparable 9 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    9 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, HCFC-22, and R-502, with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, R-407H's GWP of about 1,500 is lower than that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410B, and R-421A, with GWPs ranging from 1,770 to 2,630. R-407H's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, including CO2, R-450A, and R-513A, with GWPs ranging from one to about 630.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, manufacturer's AEL, ASHRAE 15, and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-407H acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

    4. R-442A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-442A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-442A, marketed under the trade name RS-50, is a weighted blend of 31 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 31 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 30 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); five percent HFC-227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 431-89-0); and three percent HFC-152a, which is also known as 1,1-difluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-37-6).

    EPA previously listed R-442A as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (May 17, 2013; 78 FR 29034).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-442A (RS 50) in Retail Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units). SNAP Submission Received July 26, 2011.” EPA has performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-442A”

    Environmental information: R-442A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-152a, have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; 3,220; and 124, respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-442A has a GWP of about 1,890. The components of R-442A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    Flammability information: R-442A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-152a, the components of R-442A. The manufacturer of R-442A recommends an AEL of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEELs and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-442A has an ODP of zero, comparable 10 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    10 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, HCFC-22, and R-502, with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, R-442A's GWP of about 1,890 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-407A, R-407F, R-410B, and R-421A with GWPs ranging from 1,820 to 2,630. R-442A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one and HFC-134a, R-407C, R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs of about 600 to 1,770.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15, and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-442A acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

    5. R-448A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-448A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) • Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-448A, marketed under the trade name Solstice® N-40, is a weighted blend of 26 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 26 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 21 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); 20 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No 754-12-1); and seven percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-448A (N-40) in Industrial Process Refrigeration and Cold Storage Warehouses. SNAP Submission Received May 29, 2014.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Cold Storage Warehouses Substitute: R-448A (Solstice® N-40)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process Refrigeration Substitute: R-448A (Solstice® N-40)”

    EPA previously listed R-448A as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (e.g., July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053; October 11, 2016, 81 FR 70029).

    Environmental information: R-448A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, and HFO-1234ze(E) have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; one to four; 11 12 and one to six; 13 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-448A has a GWP of about 1,390. The components of R-448A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    11 Hodnebrog et al., 2013. Op. cit.

    12 Nielsen, O.J., Javadi, M.S., Sulbaek Andersen, M.P., Hurley, M.D., Wallington, T.J., Singh, R. Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CF=CH2: Kinetics and mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3. Chemical Physics Letters 439, 18-22, 2007.

    13 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Javadi et al., 2008. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-448A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E), the components of R-448A. The manufacturer of R-448A recommends an AEL of 890 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEELs and manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-448A has an ODP of zero, comparable 14 to or lower than other listed substitutes in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    14 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For cold storage warehouses, R-448A's GWP of 1,390 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-407F, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 1,820. R-448A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for cold storage warehouses, including ammonia absorption, desiccant cooling, evaporative cooling, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    For industrial process refrigeration, R-448A's GWP of 1,390 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407C, and HFC-23 with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 14,800. R-448A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for industrial process refrigeration, including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Sterling cycle, CO2, propane, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-448A acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    6. R-449A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-449A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) • Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-449A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 40, is a weighted blend of 24.3 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 24.7 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 25.7 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 25.3 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-449A (XP40) in Industrial Process Refrigeration and Cold Storage Warehouses. SNAP Submission Received August 26, 2014.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Cold Storage Warehouses Substitute: R-449A (Opteon® XP40)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process Refrigeration Substitute: R-449A (Opteon® XP40)”

    EPA previously listed R-449A as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (e.g., July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053; October 11, 2016, 81 FR 70029).

    Environmental information: R-449A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; and one to four,15 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-449A has a GWP of about 1,400. The components of R-449A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    15 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-449A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-449A. The manufacturer of R-449A recommends an AEL of 830 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-449A has an ODP of zero, comparable 16 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    16 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For cold storage warehouses, R-449A's GWP of 1,400 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-407F with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 1,820. R-449A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for cold storage warehouses, including ammonia absorption, desiccant cooling, evaporative cooling, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    For industrial process refrigeration, R-449A's GWP of 1,400 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407C, and HFC-23 with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 14,800. R-449A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for industrial process refrigeration including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Sterling cycle, CO2, propane, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-449A acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    7. R-449B

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-449B acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) • Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-449B, marketed under the trade name Forane® 449B, is a weighted blend of 25.2 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 24.3 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 27.3 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 23.2 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-449B in Industrial Process Refrigeration and Cold Storage Warehouses. SNAP Submission Received October 2, 2015.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Cold Storage Warehouses Substitute: R-449B (Forane® 449B)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process Refrigeration Substitute: R-449B (Forane® 449B)”

    EPA previously listed R-449B as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (i.e., October 11, 2016, 81 FR 70029).

    Environmental information: R-449B has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; and one to four,17 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-449B has a GWP of about 1,410. The components of R-449B are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    17 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-449B, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-449B. The manufacturer of R-449B recommends an AEL of 850 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-449B has an ODP of zero, comparable 18 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    18 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For cold storage warehouses, R-449B's GWP of 1,410 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-407F with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 1,820. R-449B's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for cold storage warehouses including ammonia absorption, desiccant cooling, evaporative cooling, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    For industrial process refrigeration, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-449B's GWP of about 1,410, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407C, and HFC-23 with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 14,800; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for industrial process refrigeration have a lower GWP including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Sterling cycle, CO2, propane, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-449B acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    8. R-452A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-452A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Refrigerated transport—refrigerated trucks and trailers 19 (new and retrofit equipment)

    19 This end-use category covers a subset of on-road vehicles, i.e., refrigerated trucks and trailers with a separate refrigeration unit with the condenser typically located either in the main engine compartment or at the front of a refrigerated trailer. It does not include refrigerated vans or other vehicles where a single system also supplies passenger comfort cooling, refrigerated intermodal shipping containers (e.g., containers designed to be moved between ships, trucks, or other modes of transportation for uninterrupted storage), railway refrigeration, or ship holds.

    • Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-452A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 44, is a weighted blend of 11 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 59 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); and 30 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-prop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-452A (XP44) in Refrigerated Transport (Refrigerated Trucks and Trailers) and Retail Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units). SNAP Submission Received August 8, 2014.” EPA has performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Refrigerated Transport Substitute: R-452A” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-452A”

    Environmental information: R-452A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 675; 3,500; and one to four, respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-452A has a GWP of about 2,140. The components of R-452A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    Flammability information: R-452A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs for the components of R-452A of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32 and HFC-125, and of 500 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer of R-452A recommends an AEL of 786 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-452A has an ODP of zero, comparable 20 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    20 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For refrigerated transport—refrigerated trucks and trailers, R-452A's GWP of about 2,140 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-404A, R-507A, and a number of HFC refrigerant blends (with GWPs ranging from approximately 2,230 to 3,990). R-452A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport, including CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 2,110.

    For retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, R-452A's GWP of about 2,140 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-410B and R-421A, with GWPs ranging from 2,230 to 2,630. R-452A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one, and HFC-134a and a number of HFC blends and HFC/HFO blends with GWPs of about 600 to 2,110.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-452A acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    9. R-452C

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-452C acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Refrigerated transport—refrigerated trucks and trailers (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-452C, marketed under the trade name Forane® 452C, is a weighted blend of 12.5 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 61 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); and 26.5 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-prop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-452C in Refrigerated Transport (Refrigerated Trucks and Trailers) and Retail Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units). SNAP Submission Received July 8, 2016.” EPA has performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Refrigerated Transport Substitute: R-452C” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-452C”

    Environmental information: R-452C has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 675; 3,500; and one to four,21 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-452C has a GWP of about 2,220. The components of R-452C are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    21 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-452C, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs for the components of R-452C of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32 and HFC-125 and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-452C has an ODP of zero, comparable 22 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    22 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For refrigerated transport—refrigerated trucks and trailers, R-452C's GWP of about 2,220 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-404A, R-507A, and a number of HFC refrigerant blends (with GWPs ranging from approximately 2,230 to 3,990). R-452C's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport, including CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 2,110.

    For retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, R-452C's GWP of about 2,220 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-410B and R-421A, with GWPs ranging from 2,230 to 2,630. R-452C's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one and HFC-134a and a number of HFC blends and HFC/HFO blends of about 600 to 2,110.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-452C acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    10. R-453A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-453A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) • Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-453A, marketed under the trade name RS-70, is a weighted blend of 20.0 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 20.0 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 53.8 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); five percent HFC-227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 439-89-0); 0.6 percent R-600, which is also known as butane (CAS Reg. No. 75-28-5); and 0.6 percent R-601a, which is also known as isopentane (CAS Reg. 78-78-4).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-453A (RS-70) in Industrial Process Refrigeration, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Retail Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units). SNAP Submission Received March 12, 2015.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Cold Storage Warehouses Substitute: R-453A (RS-70)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process Refrigeration Substitute: R-453A (RS-70)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-453A”

    Environmental information: R-453A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, butane, and isopentane, have GWPs of 675, 3,500, 1,430, 3,220, 4, and 5, respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-453A has a GWP of about 1,770. Except for butane and isopentane, which together make up approximately 1.2 percent of the blend, the components of R-453A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    Flammability information: R-453A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    For the components of R-453A, the AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-227ea, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has established a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 1,000 ppm for R-600 and a TLV of 600 ppm for R-601a, both as an 8-hr TWA. The manufacturer of R-453A recommends an AEL of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs, the ACGIH's TLVs, and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-453A has an ODP of zero, comparable 23 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    23 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For cold storage warehouses, R-453A's GWP of about 1,770 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-407C and R-407F, with GWPs ranging from 1,770 to 1,820. R-453A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for cold storage warehouses, including ammonia absorption, desiccant cooling, evaporative cooling, HFC-134a, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to 1,510.

    For industrial process refrigeration, R-453A's GWP of about 1,770 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-404A, R-407C, and HFC-23 with GWPs ranging from 1,770 to 14,800. R-453A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for industrial process refrigeration, including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Sterling cycle, CO2, HFC-134a, propane, R-426A, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 1,510.

    For retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, R-453A's GWP of about 1,770 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-407A, R-407C, R-410B, and R-421A, with GWPs ranging from about 1,770 to 2,630. R-453A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes in remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one and HFC-134a, R-426A, R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs of about 600 to 1,510.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-453A acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    11. R-458A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-458A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) • Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps (retrofit equipment only) • Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-458A, marketed under the trade name Bluon TdX 20, is a weighted blend of 20.5 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 4.0 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 61.4 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); 13.5 percent HFC-227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 431-89-0); and 0.6 percent HFC-236fa, which is also known as 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 690-39-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-458A (TdX20) in Industrial Process Refrigeration, Retail Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units), and Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. SNAP Submission Received November 7, 2014.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process Refrigeration Substitute: R-458A (TdX 20)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Substitute: R-458A (TdX 20)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-458A (TdX 20)”

    Environmental information: R-458A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-236fa, have GWPs of 675, 3,500, 1,430, 3,220, and 9,810, respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-458A has a GWP of about 1,650. The components of R-458A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    Flammability information: R-458A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat when inhaled. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-236fa, the components of R-458A. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEELs and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-458A has an ODP of zero, comparable 24 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    24 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For industrial process refrigeration, R-458A's GWP of about 1,650 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-404A, R-407C, and HFC-23, with GWPs ranging from 1,770 to 14,800. R-458A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for industrial process refrigeration, including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Sterling cycle, CO2, HFC-134a, propane, R-426A, R-450A, and R-513A, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 1,510.

    For residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps in retrofit equipment, R-458A's GWP of about 1,650 is lower than all other substitutes listed as acceptable, such as R-407C, R-438A, and R-507A, with GWPs ranging from 1,770 to 3,990.

    For retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, R-458A's GWP of about 1,650 is lower than that of acceptable substitutes, such as R-407A, R-407C, R-410B, and R-421A, with GWPs ranging from about 1,770 to 2,630. R-458A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes in remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one and HFC-134a, R-426A, R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, R-450A, and R-513A, with GWPs of about 600 to 1,510.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15, and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-458A acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    12. R-513A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-513A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Residential dehumidifiers (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-513A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 10, is a weighted blend of 44 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2), and 56 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of R-513A (XP10) in Residential Dehumidifiers. SNAP Submission Received July 24, 2014.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Residential Dehumidifiers Substitute: R-513A”

    EPA previously listed R-513A as acceptable for use as a refrigerant in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (May 23, 2016, 81 FR 32241; July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053).

    Environmental information: R-513A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 1,430 and one to four,25 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-513A has a GWP of about 630. The components of R-513A are both excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    25 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-513A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively, the components of R-513A. The manufacturer of R-513A recommends an AEL of 653 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the manufacturer's AEL and AIHA WEELs and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-513A has an ODP of zero, comparable 26 to other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.057.

    26 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For residential dehumidifiers, R-513A's GWP of 630 is lower than that of other acceptable substitutes, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, and R-507A with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 3,990.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15, and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-513A acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

    B. Cleaning Solvents 1. HFE-7300

    EPA's decision: EPA finds HFE-7300 acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Electronics cleaning • Metals cleaning • Precision cleaning

    HFE-7300 is also known as 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane (CAS Reg. No. 132182-92-4) and goes by the trade name of 3MTM NovecTM7300 Engineered Fluid.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 33 Listing of HFE-7300 in Solvent Cleaning and Non-Mechanical Heat Transfer Systems. SNAP Submission Received October 13, 2016.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Electronics Cleaning, Metals Cleaning, and Precision Cleaning Substitute: HFE-7300.”

    Environmental information: The environmental information for this substitute is set forth in the “Environmental information” section in listing I.A.2.

    Flammability information: HFE-7300 is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: The toxicity information for this substitute is set forth in the “Toxicity and exposure data” section in listing I.A.2. The potential health effects of HFE-7300 are common to many solvents. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL of 100 ppm on an 8-hr TWA and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the solvent cleaning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: HFE-7300 has an ODP of zero, comparable 27 to or lower than the ODP of other substitutes in the same end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.033.

    27 In contrast, the historically used ODS CFC-113, methyl chloroform, HCFC-225ca, and HCFC-225cb have ODPs ranging from 0.02 to 0.8.

    For both electronics cleaning and precision cleaning, HFE-7300's GWP of 310 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as HFE-7000, HFE-7100, HFC-365mfc, and HFC-43-10mee, with GWPs ranging from about 300 to 1,640. HFE-7300's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for these end-uses, including acetone, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, and HFE-7200 with GWPs ranging from less than 1 to 59. Its climate impacts cannot be compared directly to those of aqueous cleaners, which have zero GWP.

    For metals cleaning, HFE-7300's GWP of 310 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes, such as HFE-7100, HFC-365mfc and HFC-43-10mee, with GWPs ranging from about 300 to 1,640. HFE-7300's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for this end-use including acetone, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, and HFE-7200 with GWPs ranging from less than 1 to 59. Its climate impacts cannot be compared directly to those of aqueous cleaners, which have zero GWP.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the solvent cleaning industry.

    EPA finds HFE-7300 acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP Program

    Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

    1. Rulemaking

    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I substance (CFC, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II substance (HCFC) with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available.

    2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes

    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of “acceptable” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector and the lists of “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.

    3. Petition Process

    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.

    4. 90-Day Notification

    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

    5. Outreach

    Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.

    6. Clearinghouse

    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

    B. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in the major industrial use sectors (subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These sectors are the following: Refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.

    Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as acceptable those substitutes that do not present a significantly greater risk to human health and the environment as compared with other substitutes that are currently or potentially available.

    C. How the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a substitute to replace a class I substance or class II substance in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). While this requirement typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the entity likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,28 it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, and end users 29 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after notice has been provided to the Agency.

    28 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, “interstate commerce” means the distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance.

    29 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “end-use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ODS.

    The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)).30 Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions may be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes.31

    30 The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision.

    31 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “use” means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency generally requires a user of a substitute subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application.32 EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using the substitute in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

    32 In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA established narrowed use limits for certain substitutes over a limited period of time for specific MVAC and foam applications, on the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available for those specific applications within broader end-uses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to become available over time, e.g., after military qualification testing for foam blowing agents in military applications or after development of improved servicing infrastructure in a destination country for MVAC in vehicles destined for export.

    The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower risk alternative is available or potentially available” 33 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed circumstance.

    33 In addition to acceptable commercially available substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available substitutes. The SNAP program's definition of “potentially available” is “any alternative for which adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which the agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.” (40 CFR 82.172)

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including the initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register at 59 FR 13044 on March 18, 1994, the SNAP program evaluates substitutes within a comparative risk framework. The SNAP program compares new substitutes both to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the CAA, and to other available or potentially available alternatives for the same end-uses. The environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers include ozone depletion potential, flammability, toxicity, occupational and consumer health and safety, as well as contributions to global warming and other environmental factors. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute—and over time, information applicable to a substitute can change. This approach does not imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk, either to the environment or to human health. Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.

    In contrast, EPA publishes “notices of acceptability” or “determinations of acceptability,” to notify the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.

    Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “further information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by OSHA). The “further information” classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “further information” column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus many of the statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating practices.

    D. Additional Information About the SNAP Program

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at: www.epa.gov/snap. For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations are found at: www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: June 28, 2017. Reid P. Harvey, Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes Refrigeration and Air Conditioning End-use Substitute Decision Further information 1 Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) R-448A Acceptable R-448A has a 100-yr global warming potential (GWP) of approximately 1,390. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-prop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1); and HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9). The blend is nonflammable. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) of 1,000 ppm on an eight-hour time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) basis for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E). The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) for the workplace for R-448A of 890 ppm (8-hr TWA). Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) R-449A Acceptable R-449A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,400. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449A of 830 ppm (8-hr TWA). Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) R-449B Acceptable R-449B has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,410. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449B of 850 ppm (8-hr TWA). Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) R-453A Acceptable R-453A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,770. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFC-227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 439-89-0); R-;600, which is also known as butane (CAS Reg. No. 75-28-5); and R-601a, which is also known as isopentane (CAS Reg. No. 78-78-4). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-227ea, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has established a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 1,000 ppm for R-600 and a TLV of 600 ppm for R-601a, both as an 8-hr TWA. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-453A of 1000 ppm (8-hour TWA). Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) R-448A Acceptable R-448A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,390. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-prop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1); and HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E). The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-448A of 890 ppm (8-hr TWA). Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) R-449A Acceptable R-449A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,400. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449A of 830 ppm (8-hr TWA). Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) R-449B Acceptable R-449B has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,410. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449B of 850 ppm (8-hr TWA). Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) R-453A Acceptable R-453A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,770. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFC227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 439-89-0); R-600, which is also known as butane (CAS Reg. No. 75-28-5); and R-601a, which is also known as isopentane (CAS Reg. No. 78-78-4). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-227ea, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has established a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 1,000 ppm for R-600 and a TLV of 600 ppm for R-601a, both as an 8-hr TWA. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-453A of 1000 ppm (8-hour TWA). Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) R-458A Acceptable R-458A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,650. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFC-227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 431-89-0); and HFC-236fa, which is also known as 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 690-39-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-236fa. Non-mechanical heat transfer systems (new and retrofit equipment) HFE-7300
  • (1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane)
  • Acceptable HFE-7300 (CAS Reg. No. 132182-92-4) has no ozone depletion potential (ODP) and a 100-year GWP of approximately 310.
    This compound is nonflammable. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for HFE-7300 of 100 ppm (8-hr TWA). This substitute is subject to a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (40 CFR 721.10061). Refrigerated transport—refrigerated trucks and trailers (new and retrofit equipment) R-452A Acceptable R-452A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 2,140. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32 and HFC-125; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-452A of 786 ppm (8-hour TWA). Refrigerated transport—refrigerated trucks and trailers (new and retrofit equipment) R-452C Acceptable R-452C has a 100-year GWP of approximately 2,220. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32 and HFC-125; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf.
  • Residential dehumidifiers (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). This blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-513A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA). Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps (retrofit equipment) HFC-134a Acceptable HFC-134a has a 100-year GWP of 1,430. HFC-134a is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2). HFC-134a is nonflammable. The AIHA has established a WEEL of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a. Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps (retrofit equipment) R-458A Acceptable R-458A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,650. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFC-227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 431-89-0); and HFC-236fa, which is also known as 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 690-39-1). This blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-236fa. Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment) R-407H Acceptable R-407H has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,500. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); and HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6). This blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a, HFC-32, and HFC-125. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-407H of 1,000 ppm (8-hour TWA). Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment) R-442A Acceptable R-442A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,890. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFC-227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 431-89-0); and HFC-152a, which is known as 1,1-difluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-37-6). This blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-152a. The manufacturer of R-442A recommends an AEL of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment) R-452A Acceptable R-452A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 2,140. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32 and HFC-125; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-452A of 786 ppm (8-hour TWA). Retail food refrigeration— remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment) R-452C Acceptable R-452C has a 100-year GWP of approximately 2,220. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32 and HFC-125; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment) R-453A Acceptable R-453A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,770. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFC227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 439-89-0); R-600, which is also known as butane (CAS Reg. No. 75-28-5); and R-601a, which is also known as isopentane (CAS Reg. No. 78-78-4). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-227ea, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has established a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 1,000 ppm for R-600 and a TLV of 600 ppm for R-601a, both as an 8-hr TWA. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-453A of 1000 ppm (8-hour TWA). Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment) R-458A Acceptable R-458A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,650. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFC-227ea, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 431-89-0); and HFC-236fa, which is also known as 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (CAS Reg. No. 690-39-1). This blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-236fa.
    Cleaning Solvents End-use Substitute Decision Further information 1 Electronics cleaning, metals cleaning, precision cleaning HFE-7300
  • (1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane)
  • Acceptable HFE-7300 (CAS Reg. No. 132182-92-4) has no ozone depletion potential (ODP) and a 100-year GWP of approximately 310. It is excluded from the definition of volatile organic compounds under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
  • This compound is nonflammable.
  • The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for HFE-7300 of 100 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • This substitute is subject to a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (40 CFR 721.10061).
  • 1 Observe recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS and guidance for all listed substitutes.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15379 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 73 and 74 [AU Docket No. 17-143; DA 17-533; DA 17-668] Filing Instructions for Cross-Service FM Translator Auction Filing Window for AM Broadcasters To Be Open July 26-August 2, 2017; Freeze on FM Translator and Low-Power FM Station Minor Change Applications and FM Booster Applications July 19-August 2, 2017; Availability of Online Tutorial; Clarification of Eligible Applicants AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In the document released June 6, 2017, the Media Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released instructions for filing applications in a filing window to be open from July 26, 2017, through August 2, 2017, in which certain AM station licensees and proposed assignees may seek new FM translator construction permits to retransmit the signals of the primary AM stations. In addition, the Media Bureau announced that it will not accept low-power FM and FM translator minor change construction permit applications and FM booster construction permit applications between July 19 and August 2, 2017. In the document released July 13, 2017, Commission staff announced that an online tutorial would be available for this auction, which is designated as Auction 99, and addressed a petition for clarification on an issue of applicant eligibility for this filing window opportunity.

    DATES:

    From 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 19, 2017, until midnight ET on August 2, 2017, there is a filing freeze for low-power FM and FM translator minor change construction permit applications and for FM booster construction permit applications. Starting at 12:01 a.m. ET on July 26, 2017, and prior to 6:00 p.m. on August 2, 2017, an eligible applicant may file its FCC Form 349. Starting at 9:00 a.m. ET on July 26, 2017, and prior to 6:00 p.m. ET on August 2, 2017, an eligible applicant may file its FCC Form 175.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    About broadcast radio or FCC Form 349, James Bradshaw, Lisa Scanlan or Tom Nessinger in the Media Bureau's Audio Division at (202) 418-2700. About FCC Form 175 and competitive bidding rules, Lynne Milne in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Auctions and Spectrum Access Division at (202) 418-0660. About general auction procedures, the Auctions Hotline at (717) 338-2868.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of a public notice released on June 6, 2017, supplemented by a related public notice released on July 13, 2017. The complete texts of these documents are available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete texts also are available on the Commission's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available for persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    1. The Media Bureau will institute a freeze on the acceptance of FM booster construction permit applications, as well as minor change construction permit applications for FM translators or Low Power FM stations on all channels (channels 201-300) starting at 12:01 a.m. ET on July 19, 2017 until midnight ET on August 2, 2017. Any such applications filed during this freeze will be dismissed.

    2. On June 6, 2017, the Media Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau announced in a public notice (Filing Instructions Public Notice) details and filing instructions for certain AM broadcasters to apply for cross-service FM translator station construction permits in Auction 99. Eligibility for this filing opportunity is limited to any Class C or D AM station licensee or permittee, or the proposed assignee of such an AM station, wishing to file an application to establish a new cross-service FM translator to retransmit its AM station signal full time, provided that the AM primary station was not listed as the AM primary station in a FM translator modification application filed in either of the 2016 modification windows.

    3. During this upcoming filing window, an applicant may propose only one cross-service FM translator for each Class C or D AM primary station to be rebroadcast. Any FM translator awarded through this filing window will only be authorized to rebroadcast the AM primary station identified in the applicant's FCC Form 349 Tech Box (or to originate nighttime programming during periods when a daytime-only AM primary station is not operating), on a permanent basis. The authorization for any FM translator station awarded through this filing window will be subject to a condition that it may not be assigned or transferred except in conjunction with the AM primary station that it rebroadcasts and with which it is commonly owned.

    4. An eligible licensee or permittee, or proposed assignee if applicable, seeking a new cross-service FM translator for its AM station(s) must file electronically in the Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) prior to 6:00 p.m. ET on August 2, 2017, a separate FCC Form 349, Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in a FM Translator or FM Booster Station, for a construction permit for each such proposed FM translator. An applicant may designate in its FCC Form 349 Tech Box any non-reserved FM channel (Channels 221-300, 92.1-107.9 MHz) for its proposed cross-service translator. Only Section I, the Tech Box of Section III-A, and the Section VI Certification must be completed at this time. The applicant name entered in the FCC Form 349 must be identical with the name of the licensee or permittee on the AM primary station license or construction permit, unless it is the name of the assignee of a pending or granted assignment application for that eligible AM primary station.

    5. Applicants must review carefully each Form 349 Tech Box submission for compliance with section 74.1201(g) and all other Commission technical rules relating to FM translator stations, as well as insuring that only one Form 349 is submitted for each qualified AM station. At the end of the initial filing window, if an applicant has filed more than one FM translator proposal (Form 349 Tech Box) designating the same AM primary station, only the first-filed FM translator engineering proposal (Form 349 Tech Box) will be considered. To avoid staff consideration of an unintended proposal, each applicant must carefully review its Forms 349 before submission, and delete each undesired engineering proposal that specifies the identical AM primary station. Any request to delete an undesired proposal must be emailed before the initial filing window closes to [email protected]

    6. After the August 2, 2017, application deadline, an Auction 99 applicant may only file a technical amendment during the settlement period to be specified in a future public notice. No amendment, technical or otherwise, to a cross-service FM translator Form 349 filed during this filing window will be accepted between the close of the application filing window on August 2, 2017, and the release of the public notice listing mutually exclusive (MX) FM translator engineering proposals (if the engineering proposal is MX) or the release of the public notice listing the non-mutually exclusive FM translator engineering proposals (if the engineering proposal is not MX). Additional instructions about the filing of a Form 349 in the upcoming filing window are provided in Attachment A of the Filing Instructions Public Notice.

    7. Each eligible AM station licensee or permittee applicant, or proposed assignee if applicable, for a new FM translator station must file electronically via the FCC Auction System one FCC Form 175, an Application to Participate in an Auction, in compliance with the Commission's rules and the instructions provided in the Filing Instructions Public Notice. A Form 175 must be submitted and confirmed prior to 6:00 p.m. ET on August 2, 2017. The applicant name entered in the FCC Form 175 must be identical with the name of the licensee or permittee on the AM primary station license or construction permit, unless the applicant name is identical with the name of a pending or granted assignment application assignee, if applicable.

    8. An individual or entity may not submit more than one FCC Form 175 during this filing window, regardless of the number of Forms 349 it files. As explained in the Filing Instructions Public Notice, the Bureaus waived for Auction 99 the prohibition of section 1.2105(a)(3) on the filing of more than one FCC Form 175 by entities with any of the same controlling interests, but will continue to apply the prohibition against the filing of more than one FCC Form 175 by the same individual or entity.

    9. An applicant's one Form 175 must cover all proposed FM translator stations for which that applicant files a FCC Form 349 Tech Box. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the CDBS-assigned file number(s) and facility identification (ID) number(s) from its Form(s) 349 are entered accurately in the View/Edit Engineering Proposals section of the applicant's Form 175. Any inaccuracy in data entry in the Form 175 of the CDBS-assigned file number(s) or facility ID number(s) could result in the Form 349 being excluded from auction processing. Also, any Form 349 submitted during the initial filing window that is not referenced on that applicant's Form 175 will be dismissed in CDBS.

    10. Commission staff will not consider any proposal for which the required information is not on file by the close of the initial application filing window. No consideration will be given to the following: (a) Any application for which both a FCC Form 175 and a complete FCC Form 349 proposal are not on file by the close of the initial application filing window; (b) any proposal filed by an applicant that is not a licensee or permittee, or proposed assignee if applicable, of a Class C or D AM broadcast station (including but not limited to any proposal filed by the licensee or permittee of a Class A or B AM broadcast station); (c) any proposal designating an AM primary station that was designated as the primary station on any application filed in either of the 2016 modifications windows; or (d) any proposal that specifies a channel in the reserved FM broadcast band (Channels 200-220, 88.1-91.9 MHz).

    11. Each prospective Auction 99 applicant must review carefully the instructions provided about completing and submitting a FCC Form 175 in the Filing Instructions Public Notice, including guidance in Attachments A and B to that document. This Filing Instructions Public Notice provided specific information about reporting authorized bidders, the disclosure of agreements relating to construction permits subject to Auction 99, disclosure requirements for applicant owners and controlling interests, and provisions regarding a current and former default or delinquency. For example, Commission rules prohibit an individual from serving as an authorized bidder for more than one auction applicant.

    12. Further, the interests of the applicant, and of any individual or entity with an attributable interest in the applicant, in other media of mass communications are considered as of the initial Form 175 filing deadline when determining an applicant's eligibility for a new entrant bidding credit. Events occurring after this filing deadline, however, may cause diminishment or loss of bidding credit eligibility, and must be reported immediately.

    13. The description in the Filing Instructions Public Notice of the noncommercial education (NCE) status election included a warning that if an FCC Form 175 identifies the application's proposed FM translator as noncommercial educational and that NCE engineering proposal is mutually exclusive with any engineering proposal for a commercial station, the NCE engineering proposal (Form 349) will be returned as unacceptable for filing. Each prospective applicant should consider carefully if it wishes to propose NCE operation for any FM translator acquired in this auction. This NCE election cannot be reversed after the initial application filing deadline on August 2, 2017.

    14. After the initial application filing deadline, an applicant will be permitted to make only minor modifications to its FCC Form 175 and major modifications are not permitted. For example, a claim of eligibility for a higher percentage of bidding credit will not be permitted after the initial application filing deadline. Further information is provided in the Filing Instructions Public Notice.

    15. Each applicant has a continuing obligation to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending FCC Form 175, including any change that may cause a loss of or reduction in the percentage of bidding credit requested previously. An auction applicant must file additional or corrected information within five days after a significant occurrence or amend its FCC Form 175 no later than five days after the applicant becomes aware of the need for amendment. An applicant's obligation to make modifications to a pending FCC Form 175 continues after these five days. An applicant is obligated to amend its pending application even if a reported change is considered to be a major modification that may result in the dismissal of its application.

    16. Prospective applicants should study carefully the explanations in the Filing Instructions Public Notice concerning prohibited communication by an auction applicant contained in sections 1.2105(c) and 73.5002. For example, an applicant is defined in section 1.2105(c) for purposes of these prohibitions to include each officer and each director of the applicant, each controlling interest of the applicant, and each holder of an ownership interest in the applicant of 10 percent or more. The Filing Instructions Public Notice provided further details concerning an impermissible communication, including a reminder of the duty to report immediately a communication that appears to violate section 1.2105(c). If mutual exclusivity (MX) is determined to exist for any engineering proposals submitted during this filing window, the Bureaus will announce a subsequent period during which this prohibition will be suspended for the purpose of resolving MX conflicts. Until such time, however, these prohibited communication rules remain in effect for Auction 99 from 6:00 p.m. on August 2, 2017, until the down payment deadline which will be announced in a future public notice.

    17. If any FM translator engineering proposals filed during this announced window are determined to be MX and such MX is not resolved through a future opportunity for settlement or technical amendment, the Commission will resolve MX engineering proposals for commercial stations through competitive bidding.

    Federal Communications Commission. Sue McNeil, Chief of Staff/Special Counsel, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15327 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 161017970-6999-02] RIN 0648-XF550 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the 2017 summer flounder commercial quota allocated to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been harvested. Vessels issued a commercial Federal fisheries permit for the summer flounder fishery may not land summer flounder in Massachusetts for the remainder of calendar year 2017, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state. Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery require publication of this notification to advise Massachusetts that the quota has been harvested and to advise vessel permit holders and dealer permit holders that no Federal commercial quota is available for landing summer flounder in Massachusetts.

    DATES:

    Effective 0001 hours, July 20, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Hanson, (978) 281-9180, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned on a percentage basis among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102.

    The initial commercial quota for summer flounder for the 2017 calendar year was set equal to 5,658,260 lb (2,566,544 kg) (81 FR 93842, December 22, 2016). The percent allocated to vessels landing summer flounder in Massachusetts is 6.82046 percent, resulting in a commercial quota of 385,988 lb (175,081 kg). Massachusetts has not received any quota transfers in 2017 that would cause the initial commercial quota to be adjusted.

    The NMFS Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Region (Regional Administrator), monitors the state commercial landings and determines when a state's commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish notification in the Federal Register advising and notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the state's commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing summer flounder in that state. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the 2017 Massachusetts commercial summer flounder quota will be harvested by July 19, 2017.

    Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal permit holders agree, as a condition of the permit, not to land summer flounder in any state that the Regional Administrator has determined no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, July 20, 2017, landings of summer flounder in Massachusetts by vessels holding summer flounder commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited for the remainder of the 2017 calendar year, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer and is announced in the Federal Register. Effective 0001 hours, July 20, 2017, federally permitted dealers are also notified that they may not purchase summer flounder from federally permitted vessels that land in Massachusetts for the remainder of the calendar year, or until additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state.

    Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. This action closes the commercial summer flounder fishery for Massachusetts until January 1, 2018, under current regulations. The regulations at § 648.103(b) require such action to ensure that summer flounder vessels do not exceed quotas allocated to the states. If implementation of this closure was delayed to solicit prior public comment, the quota for this fishing year will be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan. The Assistant Administrator further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reason stated above.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15298 Filed 7-18-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 139 Friday, July 21, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 986 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0032, SC17-986-2 PR] Pecans Grown in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas; Establishment of Reporting Requirements and New Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule invites comments on the establishment of reporting requirements under the Federal marketing order for pecans (order). The American Pecan Council (Council) locally administers the order and is comprised of growers and handlers of pecans operating within the production area and a public member. This action would require all pecan handlers to submit two forms to the Council: One for inter-handler transfers and another that includes year-end inventory and pecans handled throughout the year. The Council would use this information to facilitate assessment collection and provide valuable reports to the industry, including the annual marketing policy required by the order. This proposal also announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 19, 2017. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden must be received by September 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposal will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposal is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 986, (7 CFR part 986), regulating the handling of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175.

    This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ” (February 2, 2017).

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

    This proposed rule would establish reporting requirements under the order. This action would require all pecan handlers to submit to the Council reports of inter-handler transfers of pecans, inventory, and a summary of pecans handled. This information would be used to facilitate assessment collection and provide valuable reports to the industry, including the annual marketing policy required by the order. This proposal was unanimously recommended by the Council at its April 17, 2017, meeting.

    Section 986.61 of the order requires all handlers warehousing pecans as of August 31 be identified as the handler of those pecans and pay the assessment rate accordingly. Section 986.62 provides the Council, with the approval of the Secretary, authority to establish methods and procedures, including necessary reports, to maintain accurate records for inter-handler transfers. Sections 986.75, 986.76, and 986.77 provide authority to prescribe reports of handler inventory, merchantable pecans handled, and pecans received by handlers, respectively. Section 986.78 further provides the Council, with the approval of the Secretary, authority to collect other reports and information from handlers needed to enable the Council to perform its duties. This proposed rule would utilize these authorities to establish new §§ 986.162 and 986.175 under the rules and regulations of the order. These new sections would require handlers of pecans to report to the Council any inter-handler transfers, and the volume of shelled, inshell, and total volume of pecans handled each fiscal year by type using specific Council forms.

    At its November 16, 2016 meeting, the first meeting following the order's promulgation, the Council discussed its initial budget, assessment rates, and necessary reporting requirements in order to set up a program that is efficient and responsive to industry needs. During these discussions, the Council established a Statistics and Reporting Committee (Committee) to develop reporting requirements.

    Members of the Committee discussed the reporting needs of the industry, reviewed examples of reporting forms from other marketing orders, and met and worked with the staff of another marketing order in developing the proposed reporting requirements. The Committee also worked with USDA to ensure the recommended information collection would provide the information necessary to facilitate the administration of the order.

    At its February 23, 2017 meeting, the Council reviewed drafts of seven reporting forms as developed and recommended by the Committee. The Council expressed its interest in having as much electronic reporting as possible, but recognized that many handlers may prefer a paper submission. The Council also considered the timing of when forms would be due and submission dates that would work for all parts of the industry. After a thorough review and some modifications, seven forms were approved by the Council.

    At a meeting on April 17, 2017, the Council revisited the recommended reporting requirements and the accompanying forms. Acknowledging the industry was more than halfway through the fiscal year at that time, the Council took action to move forward with the minimum reports necessary to facilitate the collection of assessments and to provide the other information needed for the 2016-17 fiscal year. Specifically, the Council voted to utilize two forms for the current fiscal year, one focusing on inter-handler transfers, and one containing information regarding year-end inventory and pecans handled throughout the fiscal year. The Council agreed it still wanted to move forward with all seven forms for the 2017-18 fiscal year, but considered year-end reporting on two forms as the most viable option for this fiscal year. The remaining five forms will be proposed in a subsequent rulemaking action.

    This proposed rule would add two new reporting requirements and two new forms to the rules and regulations under the order by adding §§ 986.162 and 986.175. The pecan industry includes a subset of handlers, defined in the order as accumulators, who compile pecans for the purpose of resale or transfer to another handler. Additionally, small handlers may also sell or transfer pecans to other handlers. During the formal rulemaking hearing, the industry expressed concern that it may be difficult to track pecans moved through accumulators or transferred between handlers. Further, some handlers and accumulators that are small operations may find reporting, recordkeeping, and paying assessments burdensome.

    The report of inter-handler transfers would include information on the month of transfer, type of pecans transferred, the volume transferred, the amount of assessments owed on the pecans transferred, identification information and signatures of the two handlers involved, and whether the transferring handler or receiving handler would be responsible for reporting and paying the assessments. This report would help ensure that transferred pecans are not counted twice for volume reporting purposes and would help facilitate the collection of assessments. It would also allow receiving handlers to assume the reporting burden from smaller entities and ensure payment of corresponding assessments.

    The Council selected the tenth day of the month following the month of transfer as the due date for reports of inter-handler transfers. Should the tenth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, reports would be due by the first business day following the tenth day of the month. However, given that the current season began October 1, 2016, for the 2016-17 fiscal year, all inter-handler transfer forms would need to be submitted by Monday, September 11, 2017. For subsequent fiscal years, reports of inter-handler transfers would be due on a monthly basis as specified above.

    In order to correctly collect assessments, provide industry data, and complete a marketing policy for the coming fiscal year, the Council requires accurate reports of what has been handled and what is in inventory going into the next fiscal year. Based on Council discussions, it is also important for the industry to know the variety and form of the pecan in inventory. This information would be vital to the industry as it enters the next harvest, as the amount and type of inventory impacts prices of the new crop. Collection of this data was one of the industry's goals in promulgating the order, as currently there is no source for this type of information across the 15-state production area. This information would be captured in the year-end inventory report.

    The year-end inventory report would include information on the handler submitting the form, total pounds by type of pecans inshell and shelled in inventory, inventory committed but not shipped for both export and domestic, and any uncommitted inventory. It would also include information on pecans handled throughout the year, as well as data for total inventory including both shelled and inshell, with shelled volume converted to an inshell basis using the conversion specified in the order (volume shelled × 2). In addition, it would include information regarding total assessments owed, assessments paid to date, and remaining assessments due for that handler.

    The order specifies that on August 31 of each year, every handler warehousing inshell pecans shall be identified as the first handler of those pecans and shall be required to pay the required assessment rate. The order also specifies that the marketing policy include an estimate of the handler inventory as of August 31. Consequently, the Council selected September 10 as the due date for the year-end inventory report, or the first business day following the tenth of September should the tenth fall on a weekend or a holiday. The Council believes this would give all handlers sufficient time to submit the information to the Council after August 31. Further, handlers would be required to pay to the Council all remaining unpaid assessments by the due date of the year-end inventory report.

    This action would require all pecan handlers to provide the Council with reports of any inter-handler transfers, year-end inventory, and pecans handled throughout the year. This information would facilitate assessment collections, provide valuable reports to the industry, and allow the Council to complete the annual marketing policy required by the order.

    The Council also recommended additional reporting requirements, which would be effective for the 2017-18 fiscal year. These requirements are being considered under a separate action.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    The purpose of the RFA is to determine whether the regulatory action will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

    There are approximately 2,500 growers of pecans in the production area and approximately 250 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural growers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    According to information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the average grower price for pecans during the 2015-16 season was $2.20 per pound and 254 million pounds were utilized. The value for pecans that year totaled $558.8 million ($2.20 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds). Taking the total value of production for pecans and dividing it by the total number of pecan growers provides an average return per grower of $223,520. Using the average price and utilization information, and assuming a normal bell-curve distribution of receipts among growers, the majority of growers receive less than $750,000 annually.

    Evidence presented at the formal rulemaking hearing indicates an average handler margin of $0.58 per pound. Adding this margin to the average grower price of $2.20 per pound of inshell pecans results in an estimated handler price of $2.78 per pound. With a total 2015 production of 254 million pounds, ($2.78 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds) the total value of production in 2015 was $706.12 million. Taking the total value of production for pecans and dividing it by the total number of pecan handlers provides an average return per handler of $2,824,480. Using this estimated price, the utilization volume, number of handlers, and assuming a normal bell-curve distribution of receipts among handlers, the majority of handlers have annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority (a substantial number) of growers and handlers of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas may be classified as small entities.

    This proposed rule would establish reporting requirements under the order. This action would require all pecan handlers to provide the Council with reports of any inter-handler transfers, year-end inventory, and pecans handled throughout the year. This information would facilitate the Council's collection of assessments and provide valuable reports to the industry. This rule would establish new §§ 986.162 and 986.175 under the rules and regulations of the order. The authority for this action is provided for in §§ 986.62, 986.75, 986.76, 986.77, and 986.78 of the order.

    Requiring reports of transfers, handler inventory, and pecans handled throughout the year would impose an increase in the reporting burden on all pecan handlers. However, this data is already recorded and maintained by handlers as a part of their daily business. Handlers, regardless of size, should be able to readily access this information. Consequently, any additional costs associated with this change would be minimal (not significant) and apply equally to all handlers.

    This action should also help the entire industry by providing comprehensive data on pecans handled and year-end inventory. Collection of this data was one of the industry's goals in promulgating the order as there is no other source for this type of data. This information would help with marketing and planning for the industry, as well as provide important information for the collection of assessments and in preparing the annual marketing policy required by the order. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all pecan growers and handlers, regardless of their size.

    The Council discussed other alternatives to this action, including having additional reporting requirements, but determined that in order to efficiently carry out the objectives of the marketing order this first fiscal year, the information collected in these two reports would be sufficient. The Council also considered requiring the inter-handler transfer form to be submitted for each transfer. However, the Council determined that could be burdensome for some handlers and a monthly report would provide the necessary documentation. Therefore, the alternatives were rejected.

    This proposal would establish two new reporting requirements and would require two new Council forms. Therefore, this proposed rule would impose an increase in the reporting burden for all handlers, which is discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this document.

    As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    Further, the Council's meetings were widely publicized throughout the pecan industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Council deliberations on all issues. Additionally, the Council's Committee meetings held February 23, 2017, and April 17, 2017, were also public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously-mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces AMS's intent to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection under OMB No. 0581—NEW. It will be merged with the forms currently approved under OMB No. 0581-0291 “Federal Marketing Order for Pecans.”

    Title: Pecans Grown in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas; Marketing Order No. 986.

    OMB Number: 0581—NEW.

    Type of Request: New Collection.

    Abstract: The information requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the pecan marketing order program.

    On April 17, 2017, the Council unanimously recommended that all pecan handlers covered under the order provide the Council with a record of any inter-handler transfers by type and volume. This form, titled “Report of Inter-Handler Transfers of Pecans”, would be submitted directly to the Council by handlers by the tenth day of the month following the transfer(s).

    This information collection would improve the accuracy of the Council's data collection by accounting for transferred pecans, and allow smaller handlers to transfer reporting and assessment obligations to another handler.

    The Council also recommended that all handlers covered under the order submit an annual report of inventory held by type as well as a summary of pecans handled for the year. This form, titled “Year End Inventory Report”, would be submitted directly to the Council by handlers by September 10. This information collection will facilitate the Council's collection of assessments needed to administer the program and provide necessary data for the industry on volume handled. It would also provide the volume in inventory going into the next fiscal year, which would assist with market planning and provide information for the marketing policy required by the order.

    The information collected would only be used by authorized representatives of the USDA, including the AMS Specialty Crops Program regional and headquarters staff, and authorized employees of the Council. Authorized Council employees would be the primary users of the information, and the AMS would be the secondary users. The Council's staff would compile the information and utilize it to account for assessments due, to calculate total pecans handled, and to prepare a marketing policy as required under the order. All proprietary information would be kept confidential in accordance with the Act and the order.

    The proposed request for new information collection under the order is as follows:

    Report of Inter-Handler Transfer of Pecans

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.16 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of pecans in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 60 hours.

    Year End Inventory Report

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 0.33 hours per response.

    Respondents: Handlers of pecans in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 125 hours.

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-NEW and the Marketing Order for Pecans Grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, and should be sent to the USDA in care of the Docket Clerk at the previously-mentioned address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments received will become a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the address of the Docket Clerk or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    If this proposed rule is finalized, this information collection will be merged with the forms currently approved under OMB No. 0581-0291 “Federal Marketing Order for Pecans.”

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 986

    Marketing agreements, Nuts, Pecans, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 986 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 986—PECANS GROWN IN THE STATES OF ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSOURI, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TEXAS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 986 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Revise the heading “Subpart B—[Reserved]” to read “Subpart—Rules and Regulations.” 3. Add § 986.162 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 986.162 Inter-handler transfers.

    (a) Inter-handler transfers of inshell pecans, pursuant to § 986.62, shall be reported to the Council on APC Form 4. Handlers shall file reports by the tenth day of the month following the month of transfer. Should the tenth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, reports are due by the first business day following the tenth day of the month; Provided, that for the 2016-17 fiscal year, all inter-handler transfer forms shall be submitted by Monday, September 11, 2017. The report shall contain the following information:

    (1) Month of transfer;

    (2) The type and weight of pecans transferred;

    (3) The amount of assessments owed on the pecans transferred;

    (4) The names and signatures for both the transferring and receiving handlers;

    (5) Handler assuming the reporting and assessment obligations on the pecans transferred.

    4. Add § 986.175 to read as follows:
    § 986.175 Handler inventory.

    (a) Handlers shall submit to the Council a year-end inventory report following August 31 each fiscal year. Handlers shall file such reports by September 10. Should September 10 fall on a weekend, reports are due by the first business day following September 10. Such reports shall be reported to the Council on APC Form 7 and include:

    (1) The name and address of the handler;

    (2) The total weight and type of inshell pecans in inventory, regardless of country of origin;

    (3) The total weight and type of shelled pecans in inventory, regardless of country of origin;

    (4) The total weight and type of inshell pecans committed, not shipped, for export and domestic shipments, and any uncommitted inventory, regardless of country of origin;

    (5) The total weight and type of shelled pecans committed, not shipped, for export and domestic shipments, and any uncommitted inventory, regardless of country of origin;

    (6) The combined total inventory for inshell and shelled pecans calculated on an inshell basis, and combined weight committed, not shipped, for exports and domestic shipments, and any uncommitted inventory;

    (7) Total weight and type of domestic pecans handled for the fiscal year;

    (8) Total assessments owed, assessments paid to date, and remaining assessments due to be paid by the due date of the year-end inventory report for the fiscal year.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15305 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0354; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-8] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Seward, NE AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending up to 700 feet above the surface at Seward Municipal Airport, Seward, NE., to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Seward non directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of NDB approach, and would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0354 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Walter Tweedy (prepare by Ron Laster), Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5802.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace in Class E.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0354/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Seward Municipal Airport. The segments within 4 miles each side of the 166° bearing from the Seward NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 14 miles southeast of the NDB, and within 4 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the Seward NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 13 miles north of the NDB, would be modified due to the decommissioning of the Seward NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE NE E5 Seward, NE [Amended] Seward Municipal Airport, NE (Lat. 40°51′53″ N., long. 97°06′33″ W.)

    The airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Seward Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 11, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15283 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0536; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-10] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Clarinda, IA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Schenck Field, Clarinda, IA. The FAA is proposing this action due to the decommissioning of the Clarinda non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and the cancellation of the associated instrument approach procedures. This action would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0536; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-10 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Schenck Field, Clarinda, IA, to support IFR operations at this airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0536/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Schenck Field, Clarinda, IA, by removing the Clarinda NDB from the legal description; removing the extension south of the airport; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Clarinda NDB, the cancellation of the associated instrument approach procedures, and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE IA E5 Clarinda, IA [Amended] Clarinda, Schenck Field, IA (Lat. 40°43′20″ N., long. 95°01′36″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Schenck Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 12, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15275 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9274; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-18] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Augusta, AR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Augusta, AR. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures developed at Woodruff County Airport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9274; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending up to and including 700 feet above the surface at Woodruff County Airport, Augusta, AR, to support special instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9274/Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Woodruff County Airport, Augusta, AR, to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW AR E5 Augusta, AR [New] Woodruff County Airport, AR (Lat. 35°16′19″ N., long. 091°16′13″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Woodruff County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 12, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15285 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0384; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-14] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Elizabeth City, NC AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to remove the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status from the legal description of the Class E airspace area designated as an extension at Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport, Elizabeth City, NC, and add NOTAM part-time language information to Class E surface area airspace. This proposal would bring the airspace descriptions in line with the airspace hours listed in the applicable Chart Supplement. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport and the Woodville non-directional radio beacon (NDB) in the associated Class D and E airspace. Also, an editorial change would be made to the Class D and E surface area airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2016-0384; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-14, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport, Elizabeth City, NC, to ensure the efficient use of airspace within the National Airspace System.

    Comments Invited

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

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-0384; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class D airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” from the regulatory text of Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport, Elizabeth City, NC.

    This proposal also would add NOTAM part-time status information to the regulatory text in Class E surface area airspace. This would bring the airspace descriptions in Order 7400.11A in line with the airspace hours listed in the applicable Chart Supplement. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the airport and Woodville NDB would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO NC D Elizabeth City, NC [Amended] Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 36°15′38″ N., long. 76°10′28″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet within a 4.1-mile radius of Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASO NC E2 Elizabeth City, NC [Amended] Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 36°15′38″ N., long. 76°10′28″ W.)

    Within a 4.1-mile radius of Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. ASO NC E4 Elizabeth City, NC [Amended] Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 36°15′38″ N., long. 76°10′28″ W.) Elizabeth City VOR/DME (Lat. 36°15′27″ N., long. 76°10′32″ W.) Woodville NDB (Lat. 36°15′47″ N., long. 76°17′53″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.6 miles each side of Elizabeth City VOR/DME 189° radial, extending from the 4.1-mile radius of Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport to 9.5 miles south of the VOR/DME; within 3.3 miles each side of Elizabeth City VOR/DME 357° radial, extending from the 4.1-mile radius of Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport to 7 miles north of the VOR/DME; within 1.2 miles each side of the 079° bearing from the Woodville NDB, extending from 4.1-mile radius of the airport to the NDB.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO NC E5 Elizabeth City, NC [Amended] Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 36°15′38″ N., long. 76°10′28″ W.) Elizabeth City VOR/DME (Lat. 36°15′27″ N., long. 76°10′32″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Elizabeth City CGAS/Regional Airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of Elizabeth City VOR/DME 189° radial, extending from the VOR/DME to 9.5 miles south of the VOR/DME.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 10, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15288 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 230 [Release No. 33-10390; File No. S7-06-17] RIN 3235-AM07 Covered Securities Pursuant to Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933 AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposes for comment an amendment to Rule 146 under Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), as amended, to designate certain securities on Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX” or “Exchange”) as covered securities for purposes of Section 18(b) of the Securities Act. Covered securities under Section 18(b) of the Securities Act are exempt from state law registration requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number S7-06-17 on the subject line. • Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-06-17. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. Studies, memoranda or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the Commission's Web site. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Holley III, Assistant Director; Edward Cho, Special Counsel; or Michael Ogershok, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Market Supervision, at (202) 551-5777, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    In 1996, Congress amended Section 18 of the Securities Act to exempt from state registration requirements securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) (now known as NYSE American LLC),1 or the National Market System of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq/NGM”) 2 (collectively, “Named Markets”), or any national securities exchange designated by the Commission to have “substantially similar” listing standards to those of the Named Markets.3 Specifically, Section 18(a) of the Securities Act provides that “no law, rule, regulation, or order, or other administrative action of any State . . . requiring, or with respect to, registration or qualification of securities . . . shall directly or indirectly apply to a security that—(A) is a covered security. . . .” 4 Covered securities are defined in Section 18(b)(1) of the Securities Act to include those securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the Named Markets, or securities listed, or authorized for listing, on a national securities exchange (or tier or segment thereof) that has listing standards that the Commission determines by rule are “substantially similar” to those of the Named Markets (“Covered Securities”).5

    1 On October 1, 2008, NYSE Euronext acquired The Amex Membership Corporation (“AMC”) pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 17, 2008 (“Merger”). In connection with the Merger, NYSE Amex's predecessor, Amex, a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary of NYSE Euronext called NYSE Alternext US LLC (“NYSE Alternext”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex 2008-62) (approving the Merger). In 2009, NYSE Alternext changed its name to NYSE Amex LLC (“NYSE Amex”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59575 (March 13, 2009), 74 FR 11803 (March 19, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-24) (approving the name change). In 2012, NYSE Amex changed its name from NYSE Amex LLC to NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67037 (May 21, 2012), 77 FR 31415 (May 25, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32) (publishing notice of the name change to NYSE MKT LLC). Effective July 24, 2017, NYSE MKT intends to change its name from NYSE MKT LLC to NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80283 (March 21, 2017), 82 FR 15244 (March 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-14). See also NYSE Trader Update, NYSE Group—Pillar Migration Update (April 13, 2017), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/Pillar%20Migration%20Update.pdf (providing notification of the expected implementation date of the name change).

    2 As of July 1, 2006, the National Market System of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC is known as the Nasdaq Global Market (“NGM”). See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53799 (May 12, 2006), 71 FR 29195 (May 19, 2006) and 54071 (June 29, 2006), 71 FR 38922 (July 10, 2006).

    3See National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-290, 110 Stat. 3416 (October 11, 1996).

    4 15 U.S.C. 77r(a).

    5 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(A) and (B). In addition, securities of the same issuer that are equal in seniority or senior to a security listed on a Named Market or national securities exchange designated by the Commission as having substantially similar listing standards to a Named Market are covered securities for purposes of Section 18(b) of the Securities Act. See 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(C).

    In 1998, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”) (now known as NYSE Arca, Inc.), the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”) (now known as NASDAQ PHLX LLC),6 and the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”) each petitioned the Commission to determine by rule that specified portions of the exchanges' listing standards were substantially similar to the listing standards of the Named Markets.7 In response to the petitions, and after extensive review of the petitioners' listing standards, the Commission adopted Rule 146(b) pursuant to Section 18(b)(1)(B) of the Securities Act, having determined that the listing standards of CBOE, Tier 1 of PCX, and Tier 1 of Phlx were substantially similar to those of the Named Markets, and thus securities listed pursuant to those standards are deemed Covered Securities.8

    6 On July 24, 2008, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. acquired Phlx and renamed it “NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC.” See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58179 (July 17, 2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-31); and 58183 (July 17, 2008), 73 FR 42850 (July 23, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-035). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62783 (August 27, 2010), 75 FR 54204 (September 3, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-104). NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC subsequently changed its name to “NASDAQ PHLX LLC.” See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76654 (December 15, 2015), 80 FR 79396 (December 21, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-105).

    7See Letter from David P. Semak, Vice President, Regulation, PCX, to Arthur Levitt, Jr., Chairman, Commission, dated November 15, 1996; Letter from Alger B. Chapman, Chairman, CBOE, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated November 18, 1996; Letter from J. Craig Long, Esq., Foley & Lardner, Counsel to CHX, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated February 4, 1997; and Letter from Michele R. Weisbaum, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Phlx, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated March 31, 1997.

    8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39542 (January 13, 1998), 63 FR 3032 (January 21, 1998) (determining that the listing standards of CBOE, Tier 1 of PCX, and Tier 1 of Phlx were substantially similar to those of the Named Markets). The Commission did not include Tier 1 of CHX in Rule 146 because of “concerns regarding the CHX's listing and maintenance procedures.” Id. at 3032.

    Accordingly, Rule 146(b) lists those national securities exchanges, or segments or tiers thereof, that the Commission has determined to have listing standards that are “substantially similar” to those of the Named Markets and thus securities listed on such exchanges are deemed Covered Securities.9

    9 17 CFR 230.146(b).

    The Commission has since amended Rule 146(b) several times in response to petitions after having determined that the listing standards for securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the petitioning markets were substantially similar to those of the Named Markets and, accordingly, that such securities listed pursuant to such listing standards qualified as Covered Securities for purposes of Section 18(b) of the Securities Act.10

    10 In 2004, the Commission amended Rule 146(b) to designate options listed on the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE”) (now known as Nasdaq ISE, LLC) as Covered Securities for purposes of Section 18(b) of the Securities Act. See Securities Act Release No. 8442 (July 14, 2004), 69 FR 43295 (July 20, 2004). The Commission notes that, in March 2017, ISE changed its name from International Securities Exchange, LLC to “Nasdaq ISE, LLC.” See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80325 (March 29, 2017), 82 FR 16445 (April 4, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-25) (publishing notice of the name change to Nasdaq ISE, LLC). In 2007, the Commission amended Rule 146(b) to designate securities listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market (“NCM”) as Covered Securities for purposes of Section 18(b) of the Securities Act. See Securities Act Release No. 8791 (April 18, 2007), 72 FR 20410 (April 24, 2007). In 2012, the Commission amended Rule 146(b) to designate securities listed on Tiers I and II of BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”) as Covered Securities for purposes of Section 18(b) of the Securities Act. See Securities Act Release No. 9295 (January 20, 2012), 77 FR 3590 (January 25, 2012). The Commission notes that, in March 2016, BATS changed its name from BATS Exchange, Inc. to “Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.” See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77307 (March 7, 2016), 81 FR 12996 (March 11, 2016) (SR-BATS-2016-25) (publishing notice of the name change to Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.).

    II. Petition From IEX

    In June 2016, the Commission granted the application of IEX to become a registered national securities exchange.11 IEX's exchange registration application included a rulebook, which contained a complete set of listing rules and standards that were based on those of Nasdaq/NGM.12 When the Commission granted IEX's exchange registration it stated, among other things, that it believed IEX's proposed initial and continuing listing standards are consistent with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).13

    11See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101 (June 17, 2016), 81 FR 41142 (June 23, 2016) (File No. 10-222) (order granting IEX's exchange registration).

    12See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75925 (September 15, 2015), 80 FR 57261 (September 22, 2015) (File No. 10-222) (Notice of Filing of Application of IEX). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77406 (March 18, 2016), 81 FR 15765 (March 24, 2016) (File No. 10-222) (Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to, and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Grant or Deny, and Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Grant or Deny, an Application for Registration as a National Securities Exchange Under Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Thereto).

    13See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101 (June 17, 2016), 81 FR 41142, 41136 (June 23, 2016) (File No. 10-222) (order granting IEX's exchange registration).

    Subsequent to its exchange registration, IEX petitioned the Commission to amend Rule 146(b) and determine that the listing standards for securities listed on IEX are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets, such that IEX listed securities would be Covered Securities under Section 18(b) of the Securities Act.14

    14See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated September 22, 2016 (“IEX Petition”).

    For the reasons discussed below, the Commission preliminarily believes that IEX's listing standards are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets and, therefore, securities listed, or authorized for listing, on IEX would be eligible to be designated as Covered Securities under Rule 146(b)(1) under the Securities Act, which, as described above, are exempt from state law registration requirements. The Commission notes that, as provided in Rule 146(b)(2) under the Securities Act, the designation of IEX's listed securities as Covered Securities under Rule 146(b)(1) would be conditioned on IEX maintaining listing standards for equity securities that continue to be substantially similar to those of the Named Markets.15

    15See 17 CFR 240.146(b)(2). In response to recent proposed rule changes made by Nasdaq to its NGM listing standards since IEX first adopted its listing standards as part of its Form 1 exchange application, IEX submitted several proposed rule changes to conform its listing standards to those recent changes made by Nasdaq. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 79652 (December 21, 2016), 81 FR 95664 (December 28, 2016) (SR-IEX-2016-21) (incorporating substantially similar changes concerning substitution listing events in response to changes made by Nasdaq); and 80905 (June 12, 2017), 82 FR 27748 (June 16, 2017) (SR-IEX-2017-14) (incorporating substantially similar continued listing requirements approved for Nasdaq).

    III. Discussion

    Under Section 18(b)(1)(B) of the Securities Act,16 the Commission has the authority to determine that the listing standards of an exchange, or tier or segment thereof, are substantially similar with those of the NYSE, NYSE American, or Nasdaq/NGM. The Commission has compared IEX's listing standards with these Named Markets.17 In addition, as it has done previously, the Commission has interpreted the “substantially similar” standard to require listing standards at least as comprehensive as those of the Named Markets.18 If a petitioner's listing standards are higher than the Named Markets, then the Commission may still determine that the petitioner's listing standards are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets.19 Finally, the Commission notes that differences in language or approach would not necessarily lead to a determination that the listing standards of the petitioner are not substantially similar to those of any Named Market.20

    16 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(B).

    17 Specifically, the Commission compared IEX's listing standards with those of Nasdaq/NGM, upon which IEX based almost all of its listing rules. If, as discussed further below, a particular listing standard was not substantially similar to the standards of that market, the Commission compared IEX's listing standard to one of the other two Named Markets. This approach is consistent with the approach that the Commission has previously taken. See, e.g., Securities Act Release No. 7494 (January 13, 1998), 63 FR 3032 (January 21, 1998).

    18See id.

    19See id.

    20See id.

    The Commission has reviewed the listing standards for securities to be listed and traded on IEX and, for the reasons discussed below, preliminarily believes that the standards are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets.21

    21See generally IEX Rules Chapters 14 (IEX Listing Rules) and 16 (Other Securities). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75925, supra note 12, 80 FR 57261. In making its preliminary determination of substantial similarity, as discussed in detail below, the Commission compared IEX's qualitative listing standards to Nasdaq/NGM's qualitative listing standards and, with respect to the rules relating to the listing application process and internal audit function, with NYSE's and NYSE American's applicable qualitative listing standards; IEX's quantitative listing standards with Nasdaq/NGM's quantitative listing standards; and IEX's listing standards for other securities, including portfolio depository receipts, index fund shares, and managed fund shares, with the corresponding listing standards of Nasdaq/NGM.

    A. IEX Quantitative Listing Standards

    The Commission preliminarily believes that IEX's initial and continued quantitative listing standards for its securities are substantively identical to, and thus substantially similar to, the initial and continued quantitative listing standards for securities listed on Nasdaq/NGM.22 Therefore, the Commission preliminarily believes that IEX's quantitative listing standards are substantially similar to a Named Market.

    22 Quantitative listing standards relate to, among other things, the requirements for bid price, number of publicly held shares, number of shareholders, market value of publicly held shares, and market capitalization. Compare IEX Rules 14.300 series with Nasdaq/NGM Rule 5300 and 5400 series (providing for identical rules concerning initial listing and maintenance standards for units, primary equity securities, preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock, rights, warrants, and convertible debt on IEX and Nasdaq/NGM).

    The Commission requests comment on whether IEX's quantitative listing rules are “substantially similar” to Nasdaq/NGM's listing rules.

    B. IEX Qualitative Listing Standards

    The Commission preliminarily believes that IEX's initial and continued qualitative listing standards for its securities are substantively identical to, and thus substantially similar to, the qualitative listing standards for securities listed on Nasdaq/NGM, with the exception of IEX Rule 14.201 (Confidential Pre-Application Review of Eligibility), discussed below, which is substantively similar to rules of NYSE and NYSE American, and IEX Rule 14.414 (Internal Audit Function), also discussed below, which is substantively similar to a rule of NYSE.23

    23 Qualitative listing standards relate to, among other things, the number of independent directors required, conflicts of interest, composition of the audit committee, executive compensation, shareholder meeting requirements, voting rights, quorum, code of conduct, proxies, shareholder approval of certain corporate actions, and the annual and interim reports requirements. Compare IEX Rules 14.200 and 14.400 series with Nasdaq/NGM Rule 5200 and 5600 series (providing for virtually identical rules concerning procedures and prerequisites for initial and continued listing, obligations of security issuers, the application and qualification process, and corporate governance standards on IEX and Nasdaq/NGM).

    With respect to the standards relating to the listing and delisting of companies, including prerequisites for initial and continued listing on IEX, obligations of security issuers listed on IEX, as well as rules describing the application and qualification process,24 IEX's listing rules for securities are virtually identical to, and thus the Commission preliminarily believes they are substantially similar to, those of Nasdaq/NGM.25 With respect to IEX Rule 14.201, which relates to confidential pre-application review for listing eligibility, the Commission preliminarily believes that this rule is substantially similar to the corresponding rules of NYSE and NYSE American.26 This rule requires a company seeking the initial listing of one or more classes of securities to participate in a free, confidential pre-application eligibility review to determine whether the company meets the applicable listing criteria and, if, upon completion of this review, IEX determines that a company is eligible for listing, IEX will notify that company in writing that it has been cleared to submit an original listing application.27

    24See IEX Rule 14.200 series. The Commission notes that, while IEX Rule 14.201 is substantially similar to the equivalent NYSE and NYSE American rules (all of which relate to the confidential pre-application review for eligibility for companies seeking to list on the Exchange), IEX's rule contains an additional provision stating that a company deemed eligible for listing will be provided with written notification valid for nine months that it has been cleared to submit an original listing application. See IEX Rule 14.201. See also NYSE Listed Company Manual Sections 101 and 104; NYSE American Company Guide Section 201.

    25See Nasdaq/NGM Rule 5200 series.

    26See IEX Rule 14.201; NYSE Listed Company Manual Sections 101 and 104; and NYSE American Company Guide Section 201.

    27 IEX represents that an issuer that does not clear the pre-application eligibility review process or receive a timely response as part of that process on IEX after the confidential pre-application eligibility review would be permitted to appeal such determination under the procedures set forth in IEX Rule Series 9.500. See IEX Petition, supra note 14, at 5.

    The Commission also notes that IEX's corporate governance standards in connection with securities to be listed and traded on IEX are virtually identical to, and thus the Commission preliminarily believes they are substantially similar to, the current rules of Nasdaq/NGM and NYSE.28 With respect to IEX Rule 14.414, concerning the internal audit function for a listed issuer, the Commission preliminarily believes that this rule is substantially similar to the corresponding rule of NYSE.29 Therefore, the Commission preliminarily believes that IEX's qualitative listing standards are substantially similar to a Named Market.

    28Compare IEX Rule 14.400 series with Nasdaq/NGM Rule 5600 series.

    29 Compare NYSE Listed Company Manual Section 303A.07(c) (requiring listed companies to maintain an internal audit function to provide management and the audit committee with ongoing assessments of the listed company's risk management processes and system of internal control) with IEX Rule 14.414.

    The Commission requests comment on whether IEX's qualitative listing standards are “substantially similar” to Nasdaq/NGM's and NYSE's listing standards.

    C. Other Securities, Including Securities of Exchange-Traded Funds and Other Exchange-Traded Derivative Securities Products

    IEX has listing standards for other types of securities and exchange-traded derivative securities products, including, for example, portfolio depository receipts; index fund shares; securities linked to the performance of indexes, commodities, and currencies; index-linked exchangeable notes; partnership units; trust units; and managed fund shares.30 The Commission notes that IEX's listing rules for these other securities are virtually identical to, and thus the Commission preliminarily believes they are substantially similar to, those of Nasdaq/NGM.31 Therefore, the Commission preliminarily believes that IEX's standards for these other securities are substantially similar to those of a Named Market.

    30See generally IEX Rules Chapter 16 (Other Securities). See also IEX Rule 16.105(a) (Portfolio Depository Receipts); Rule 16.105(b) (Index Fund Shares); Rule 16.110 (Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies); Rule 16.111(a) (Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes); Rule 16.111(b) (Equity Gold Shares); Rule 16.111(c) (Trust Certificates); Rule 16.111(d) (Commodity-Based Trust Shares); Rule 16.111(e) (Currency Trust Shares); Rule 16.111(f) (Commodity Index Trust Shares); Rule 16.111(g) (Commodity Futures Trust Shares); Rule 16.111(h) (Partnership Units); Rule 16.111 (i) (Trust Units); Rule 16.111 (j) (Managed Trust Securities); Rule 16.113 (Paired Class Shares); Rule 16.115 (Selected Equity-linked Debt Securities (“SEEDS”)); Rule 16.120 (Trust Issued Receipts); Rule 16.125 (Index Warrants); Rule 16.130 (Listing Requirements for Securities Not Otherwise Specified (Other Securities)); and Rule 16.135 (Managed Funds Shares).

    31See Nasdaq/NGM Rule 5700 series.

    The Commission requests comment on whether IEX's listing standards relating to other securities are “substantially similar” to Nasdaq/NGM's listing standards.

    D. Other Proposed Amendments to Rule 146

    Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of Rule 146 use the term “NYSE Amex” to refer to the national securities exchange formerly known as the American Stock Exchange LLC. As noted above, in 2012, NYSE Amex changed its name from NYSE Amex LLC to NYSE MKT LLC, and, in 2017, NYSE MKT LLC intends to change its name to NYSE American LLC.32 In addition, paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 146 refers to Tier I of the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC. As noted above, in December 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC changed its name to NASDAQ PHLX LLC.33 In addition, paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 146 refers to Tier I and Tier II of BATS Exchange, Inc. As noted above, in March 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. changed its name to Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.34 Lastly, paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 146 refers to Options listed on the International Securities Exchange, LLC. As noted above, in March 2017, the International Securities Exchange, LLC changed its name to Nasdaq ISE, LLC.35 This proposed rule includes changes to Rule 146(b) to account for these name changes.

    32See supra note 1 and accompanying text.

    33See supra note 6 and accompanying text.

    34See supra note 10 and accompanying text.

    35See id.

    E. Comments

    To date, the Commission has not received any comment letters on the IEX Petition.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks comment generally on amending Rule 146(b) to include securities listed, or authorized for listing, on IEX. As discussed above, based on its review of IEX's listing standards, the Commission preliminarily believes that the initial and continued listing standards for IEX are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets. In addition to the questions posed above, commenters are welcome to offer their views on any other matter raised by the proposed amendment to Rule 146(b).

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not apply because the proposed amendment to Rule 146(b) does not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements or other collection of information, which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    VI. Economic Analysis

    The Commission is sensitive to the economic consequences of its rules, including the benefits, costs, and effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. As noted above, the Commission preliminarily believes that the overall listing standards for securities to be listed and traded on IEX are substantially similar to those of a Named Market. As such, the Commission proposes to amend Rule 146 under Section 18 of the Securities Act, as amended, to designate securities listed, or authorized for listing, on IEX as Covered Securities. The following analysis considers the economic effects that may result from the proposed amendment.

    Where possible, the Commission has quantified the economic effects of the proposed amendment; however, as explained further below, the Commission is unable to quantify all of the economic effects because it lacks the information necessary to provide reasonable estimates. In some cases, quantification depends heavily on factors outside of the control of the Commission, particularly due to the flexibility that an issuer has when choosing if and where to list and the flexibility of a registered national securities exchange to tailor its policies and rules to the nature of its business and technology. These factors make it difficult to quantify the changes in market share of Named and Designated Markets that may result from the proposed amendment. In addition, the incumbent Named and Designated Markets and IEX each may react to the proposed amendments with respect to listing fees and services. These reactions are also difficult to quantify or predict, which further complicates quantification of changes to market share, and also makes quantification of the economic effects of the proposed amendment difficult. Therefore, some of the discussions below are qualitative in nature. The Commission encourages commenters to provide data and information to help quantify the costs, benefits, and the potential impacts on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the proposed amendment.

    A. Baseline

    We compare the economic effects of the proposed rule, including benefits, costs, and effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, to a baseline that consists of the existing regulatory framework and market structure.

    1. Regulatory Framework and Affected Parties

    The listing standards of Named and Designated Markets are quantitative and qualitative requirements that issuers must satisfy before they may list on these markets. Securities listed on a Named or Designated Market are Covered Securities, which are exempt from complying with state securities law registration and qualification requirements. As mentioned above,36 subsequent to its exchange registration, IEX petitioned the Commission to amend Rule 146(b) and determine that the listing standards for securities listed on IEX are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets.

    36See supra notes 11-14 and accompanying text.

    Pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), a national securities exchange such as IEX currently can trade securities that are listed on other exchanges.37 While IEX may offer to list securities for trading, currently, those securities would not be Covered Securities. Issuers of securities that are not Covered Securities must comply with state securities law registration and qualification requirements, which generally require the issuer to register such securities in each state or jurisdiction in which the issuer will offer or sell its securities. State registration and qualification requirements generally vary across the 54 U.S. jurisdictions, comprising the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the three U.S. territories of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.38 These requirements typically include: (1) Filing state administrative forms and other paperwork necessary for compliance with state registration requirements; (2) adherence to disclosure standards; and (3) in some states, requirements based upon the merits of the offering or issuer.39

    37See 15 U.S.C. 781(f) and Rule 12f-2.

    38See Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, “Blue Sky Laws” (2014), available at https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-blueskyhtm.html.

    39See, e.g., Stuart R. Cohn, Securities Counseling for Small and Emerging Companies § 12:8 (2016) (describing merit review as “the authority of state administrators to deny, suspend or revoke an offering because the administrator believes that the offering has substantive weaknesses in structure, financial strength or fairness to investors”). Typical elements of merit review include: Offering expenses, including underwriter's compensation, issuer capitalization requirements, dilution, financial condition of the issuer, cheap stock held by insiders, types of offering (e.g., blind pool offerings), the quantity of securities subject to options and warrants, loans to insiders, and the price at which the securities will be offered. See id. The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), an association of state and provincial securities regulators composed of the securities administrators from each state, Mexico, and 13 Canadian provinces, has issued guidelines intended to provide uniformity among state merit review standards. See NASAA Statements of Policy, available at http://www.nasaa.org/regulatory-activity/statements-of-policy/. Some exchange listing standards impose merit regulation on issuers.

    The Commission lacks comprehensive, independent data to precisely estimate the total time, registration and compliance costs associated with state registration and qualification. Moreover, those total costs may vary widely for issuers depending on how many states an issuer needs to register in. To provide some information about potential costs for state registration, we list examples of Blue Sky registration filing fees for several states below in Table 1.

    40See CA Corp Code § 25608(e) for California filing fees; http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0500-0599/0517/Sections/0517.081.html for Florida filing fees; http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/securities/sellingsec.html for Illinois filing fees; https://ag.ny.gov/investor-protection/broker-dealer-and-securities-registration-information-sheet for New York filing fees; and https://www.ssb.texas.gov/texas-securities-act-board-rules/fee-schedule#one for Texas filing fees.

    Table 1—Examples of Blue Sky Registration Filing Fees 40 State Filing fee California $200 plus 1/5 of 1 percent of the aggregate value of the securities proposed to be sold, with a maximum fee of $2,500. Florida $1,000. Illinois 1/20 of 1 percent of the aggregate offering in Illinois, with a minimum fee of $500 and a maximum fee of $2,500. New York Based on total offerings: $500,000 or less: $300 More than $500,000: $1,200. Texas $100 filing fee, plus examination fee of 1/10 of 1 percent of the aggregate amount of securities sold in Texas.

    The issuer of a non-Covered Security in multiple jurisdictions would have more compliance obligations than the issuer of a Covered Security, including the potential for considerable additional costs and legal fees associated with reviews of offering-related materials at the state level.41 Additionally, as discussed above, many state securities regulators also review securities offerings based upon the merits of the offering and/or the issuer of the securities, which can further increase an issuer's compliance obligations and associated costs.42 In addition, the Commission notes that one commenter estimated that an issuer seeking state registration in 50 states would incur $50,000 to $70,000 in filing fees and $80,000 to $100,000 in legal fees.43 The Commission encourages commenters to provide additional information on the costs associated with complying with Blue Sky laws.44

    41 For a discussion of state securities law registration and qualification requirements, the obligations of issuers with respect to such requirements, and developments in coordinated state securities law review programs for offerings in multiple jurisdictions, see generally Securities Act Release No. 9741 (March 25, 2015), 80 FR 21806 (April 20, 2015) (Amendments for Small and Additional Issues Exemptions under the Securities Act (Regulation A), at Section II.H.3 (“Regulation A Release”).

    42See id. See also Factors that May Affect Trends in Regulation A Offerings, GAO-12-839 (July 2012) (discussing the varying standards and degrees of stringency applied during the qualification and review process in merit review states), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592113.pdf.

    43See Regulation A Release, supra note 41; and Letter from Michael L. Zuppone, Paul Hastings LLP, to Commission, dated November 26, 2013, at 2 (further noting the “significant costs and uncertainties associated with `Blue Sky' law compliance”). See also Regulation A Release, supra note 41, at n.1024 and accompanying text. The commenter did not address whether these estimated costs vary by the size of the offering. Also, we note that the estimate concerns the initial costs associated with registration. The Commission believes that the ongoing costs of compliance that the issuer bears will be lower than these initial costs.

    44See Regulation A Release, supra note 41; and Letter from Daniel Zinn, General Counsel, OTC Markets Group Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated March 24, 2014 (“OTC Markets Group Letter”), at 4-5 (describing the costs for issuers associated with Blue Sky laws).

    In addition, the Commission preliminarily believes that the state registration and qualification requirements applicable to non-Covered Securities also impose costs on broker-dealers. Specifically, broker-dealers may incur costs to ensure that they are complying with applicable state laws governing non-Covered Securities in each state in which they are transacting in those securities on behalf of their customers or providing advice or other information to customers related to those securities. For example, broker-dealers could incur costs associated with maintaining a compliance program to verify an issuer's state registration status and comply with any state requirements applicable to broker-dealers that transact in non-Covered Securities, which could vary depending on where the customer resides and the transaction occurs. In addition, the types and content of communications broker-dealers may have with their customers regarding non-Covered securities may be subject to regulation under Blue Sky laws, so broker-dealers may incur costs to ensure they are compliant with such requirements in each state in which they advising customers.45 While some portion of these costs may be passed on to a broker-dealer's customers—i.e., the investors that transact through the broker-dealer in non-Covered Securities—through commissions or transaction fees, the Commission preliminarily believes that the compliance costs associated with Blue Sky requirements may lead some broker-dealers to only offer their services for Covered Securities.46 However, the Commission lacks the data necessary to quantify the costs that broker-dealers and their customers face, and encourages commenters to provide information on these costs and the extent to which the Blue Sky requirements affect the services broker-dealers offer for non-Covered Securities.

    45See OTC Markets Group Letter, supra note 44, at 4 (describing impact of Blue Sky laws on broker-dealers).

    46 The OTC Markets letter also notes that broker-dealers may have increased “rescission risk” for failing to comply with each jurisdiction's Blue Sky requirements, which OTC Markets argues “may chill some broker-dealers' willingness to allow their customers to transact in those securities at all, including securities of SEC reporting companies.” See OTC Markets Group letter, supra note 44, at 4.

    The proposed amendment, which would make IEX a Designated Market, would preempt the application of state securities law registration and qualification requirements for securities that are listed or authorized for listing on IEX, and would impact (1) issuers who currently list their securities on a Named or Designated Market; (2) issuers with securities not currently listed on any incumbent Named or Designated Market but who would consider listing on IEX, or on an incumbent Named or Designated Market, as a result of the competition from IEX if IEX enters the listing market; and (3) issuers with securities not currently listed on any incumbent Named or Designated Market and would eventually list on a Named or Designated Market, regardless of IEX's entry into the market. Given that issuers who meet the listing standards of IEX are likely to meet the listing standards of other Named or Designated Markets, the number of issuers that would list on a Named or Designated Market solely as a result of the proposed amendment (i.e., those in category (ii) above) may be small. The proposed amendment would also affect IEX and the existing trading venues for securities that IEX would be able to list.47

    47 The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendment may also impact exchanges that are not Named or Designated Markets indirectly as explained below.

    2. Current Practices in the Market for Listings

    Issuers of public securities make several considerations when deciding on which exchange to list their securities. These considerations include, among other things, the visibility and publicity provided by the exchange, the listing services and fees, and the exchange's listing standards. The Named and Designated Markets may provide issuers of Covered Securities with additional visibility over that of securities traded over the counter, which may, in turn, increase the pool of potential investors for an issuer and thereby improve an investor's access to capital. In addition, the Named and Designated Markets provide listing services for their listed issuers, which can include monitoring, communication, and regulatory compliance services. These services may help issuers by reducing the cost of raising capital and the costs associated with going or remaining public. However, many issuers that list for the first time do so as part of an initial public offering, which can include considerations not related to listing on an exchange, such as SEC reporting obligations, as well as legal, accounting, and other expenses (both for the initial offering and the ongoing requirements of remaining public), as well as the benefits of going public, such as increased access to capital and providing investors with a signal of an issuer's ability to meet obligations, such as reporting requirements, that apply to public companies. In this case, the decision of which exchange to list on is made along with the decision about whether or not to go public.

    Issuers must pay listing fees and meet listing standards to list on a Named or Designated Market. Listing fees may include an initial application fee as well as an ongoing annual fee, and may vary by the number of shares in the initial offering or be a fixed fee. However, listing fees typically represent a small portion of the overall cost of an initial public offering or the ongoing costs of remaining public,48 and thus may not be a significant factor that issuers consider when deciding (1) whether to list on a Named or Designated Market; and (2) which Named or Designated market to list on. Listing exchanges also impose listing standards on issuers, which can include corporate governance standards as well as quantitative requirements such as minimum income, market capitalization, and operating history requirements. While an exchange's listing standards may prevent potential issuers who do not meet those standards from listing on the exchange, the stringency of an exchange's listing standards may provide a valuable signal to investors about the quality of issuers that are able to list, which may improve the issuers' access to capital.49

    48 Listing fees for equity securities can range from $55,000 (NYSE American) to $295,000 (NYSE). See NYSE MKT Company Guide at Sec. 140, available at http://wallstreet.cch.com/MKTtools/PlatformViewer.asp?SelectedNode=chp_1_1_1&manual=/MKT/CompanyGuide/mkt-company-guide/; and NYSE Listed Company Manual at 902.02, available at http://nysemanual.nyse.com/LCMTools/bookmark.asp?id=sx-ruling-nyse-policymanual_902.02&manual=/lcm/sections/lcm-sections/. See also supra notes 40-44 and accompanying text, which discusses the overall costs of state securities registration. See also Proskauer Rose LLP, 2016 IPO Study, at 52, available at http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/Proskauer-2016-IPO-Study.pdf, which examined 258 IPOs from 2013 to 2015 and found that the average total IPO expense, excluding underwriting fees, was $4.15 million.

    49 See infra Section VI.A.3, for further discussion of listing standards and signaling to investors.

    3. Competitive Landscape

    Because securities listed on the Named or Designated Markets are Covered Securities, being a Named Market or achieving status as a Designated Market permits exchanges to compete to provide listing services to issuers of Covered Securities.50 Because Covered Securities are exempt from state securities registration laws, issuers of Covered Securities are not subject to costs from state securities registration laws and the costs associated with complying with state securities registration laws are lower for broker-dealers that transact on behalf of their customers in Covered Securities.

    50 The Commission views the term “listing exchange” as equivalent to the term “Named or Designated Market,” for purposes of this release.

    Furthermore, as described below in SectionVI.A.3.b, evidence that the listing status and listing designation (i.e., whether a security is a Covered Security and where it is listed) of securities are related to where and how the securities trade leads the Commission to believe that the proposed rule could also impact the market for trading services. In this section, we discuss competition between Named and Designated Markets for listings, as well as competition between Named and Designated Markets and other trading platforms for trading services.

    (a) Competition for Listings

    Listing exchanges compete with each other on many dimensions for listing securities, including, but not limited to, listing fees, listing standards, and listing services. When issuers choose which listing exchange to list on, issuers compare the listing fees and the costs of compliance with listing standards against the quality of listing services across listing exchanges. Although issuers may incur costs to meet an exchange's listing standards, high listing standards may also yield benefits as they may serve as a positive signal to investors of an issuer's ability to satisfy high qualitative and quantitative listing requirements. Investors may interpret the reputation of listing exchanges and their listing standards as a credible signal of the quality of listed security, and the reputation of an exchange is one of the factors that issuers consider when choosing which listing exchange to list on.51

    51See, e.g., Thomas J. Chemmanur & Paolo Fulghieri, Competition and Cooperation Among Exchanges: A Theory of Cross-listing and Endogenous Listing Standards, 82 J. Fin. Econ. 455-89 (2006), available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X06001139.

    Currently, there are three Named Markets under Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act: NYSE, NYSE American, and Nasdaq/NGM. In addition, there are currently six Designated Markets: (1) Tier I of the NYSE Arca, Inc.; (2) Tier I of the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; (3) CBOE; (4) options listed on ISE; (5) The Nasdaq Capital Market; and (6) Tier I and Tier II of BATS. As of June 2, 2017, NYSE listed 3,172, Nasdaq listed 3,183, NYSE Arca listed 1,529, NYSE American listed 359, and BATS listed 176.52

    52 These estimates of listed equities include equity securities reported to a securities information processor, and do not include options or corporate debt securities. The estimates also include multiple securities from the same issuer, which means the total number of securities may differ from the total number of issuers potentially affected by this rulemaking. Listing information is from the master files of the daily trade and quotation data (“TAQ Data”).

    While the number of equities listed on an exchange may be informative about the general size of exchanges, the market shares for recent equity issue listings may provide a better picture of the nature of competition between exchanges and the size of the new listings market. In Table 2, we show the number of new equity issue listings from 2008 to 2016.53

    53 The listings data for NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE American, and NYSE Arca were taken from Compustat Merged © 2016 Center for Research in Securities Prices (“CRSP”), The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. As CRSP does not have BATS listings data, BATS listings are from TAQ Data. See supra note 52.

    Table 2—New Equity Listings in Named and Designated Markets, 2008-2016 NYSE Nasdaq NYSE
  • American
  • NYSE ARCA BATS
    2008 68 142 53 68 0 2009 76 115 33 20 0 2010 141 156 31 12 0 2011 130 132 34 14 0 2012 148 135 19 9 17 2013 178 201 26 13 6 2014 178 278 23 12 5 2015 101 220 15 13 31 2016 81 163 5 12 85

    As shown in Table 2, two listing exchanges—NYSE and Nasdaq—captured 71% of all new equity listings on Named and Designated Markets in 2016, which is evidence of a highly concentrated listing market.54 In addition, when BATS entered the market in 2012, it gained only 17 new listings, which was 5.2% of all new equity listings of 2012, which suggests that the number of issuers that remain unlisted but would list with an entrant is likely to be small.55

    54 The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) measure for listing exchanges is 0.321, calculated as the sum of squared market shares, or (2,552/7,217)⁁2 + (2,863/7,217)⁁2 + (1,377/7,217)⁁2 + (339/7,217)⁁2 + (86/7,217)⁁2 = 0.321. See Campbell McConnell, Stanley Brue & Sean Flynn, Microeconomics: Principles, Problems, & Policies 218, 219, 225, 226 (2014). An HHI close to 0 indicates low concentration while an HHI of 1 indicates total concentration or monopoly.

    55 See infra SectionVI.B.2, for further discussion about how this may affect currently unlisted issuers.

    A highly concentrated market may be the result of barriers to entry, which limit competition, and can include economies of scale, reputation, legal barriers to entry, and network externalities. Listing exchanges may exhibit economies of scale because an exchange with a large number of listings can spread the fixed costs of listing equities over a greater number of issuers. The larger these fixed costs are, the greater will be the scale economies of larger listing exchanges. Entrant exchanges can also face barriers to entry related to reputation. Exchanges that enter the market may not be able to quickly establish a strong reputation for high quality listings, which may adversely affect their ability to compete with incumbent exchanges. This lack of reputation may discourage both investors and issuers from transacting or listing on an entrant exchange, which may reinforce an entrant exchange's lack of reputation.

    Legal barriers to entry could also apply because exchanges are self-regulatory organizations overseen by the Commission. The governing statute and regulations establish legal barriers of entry for an entity becoming an exchange as well as for an exchange becoming a Designated Market. As discussed, the fact that an exchange must be designated by the Commission to become a Designated Market, which enables such an exchange to effectively compete for the listing business of Covered Securities, imposes legal barriers to entry.

    In addition, the market for listing exhibits positive network externalities: Issuers may prefer to be listed on exchanges where other similar issuers are listed because of increased visibility. This indicates that, all else being equal, large exchanges (in terms of listings) may tend to be favored over smaller ones.

    Issuers also may face switching costs associated with moving their listing from one exchange to another. These switching costs would not only include the fixed costs associated with a listing on an new exchange such as the exchange's application fee, and the legal and accounting expenses associated with ensuring that the issuer satisfies the listing standards of the new exchange, but would also include the costs associated with communicating with investors, including about the move to the new exchange. Thus, an issuer that is considering moving from one exchange would compare the relatively lower annual listing fee of their current exchange with the relatively high costs of moving its listing to a new exchange, which places the new exchange at a disadvantage and creates a barrier to entry for a potential entrant. Even if an entrant exchange prices its listing fees and services competitively compared to the incumbent exchanges for new issuers, the switching costs for issuers that are already listed may prevent the entrant from gaining market share.

    Table 3 shows estimates of the probability that an issuer would change its listing market in a given year, based on issuer switching behavior for equities over the period 2008 to 2016. As an example, during this period, if an equity security was listed on NYSE, there was a 99.33% chance that it would still be listed on NYSE the following year and a 0.04% chance it would be listed on AMEX the following year, a 0.34% chance it would be listed on Nasdaq the following year, and a 0.08% chance it would be listed on ARCA the following year. More generally, equities listed on NYSE and Nasdaq had a greater than 99% chance of remaining listed on that exchange the following year, which suggests that issuers were unlikely to switch their listings away from the two exchanges with the highest market shares.

    Table 3—Conditional Probability of Transition for Listings, 2008-2016 56 Original exchange NYSE
  • (%)
  • NYSE
  • American
  • (%)
  • Nasdaq
  • (%)
  • NYSE ARCA
  • (%)
  • BATS
  • (%)
  • Not trading 57
  • (%)
  • Status in the Following Year NYSE 99.33 0.04 0.34 0.08 0.00 0.20 NYSE Amer 1.80 93.47 2.80 1.39 0.00 0.54 Nasdaq 0.38 0.07 99.11 0.01 0.00 0.42 NYSE ARCA 1.50 0.47 1.13 90.81 0.00 6.10 BATS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.40 5.60
    (b) Competition for Trading Services

    56 The listings data for NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE American, and NYSE Arca were taken from CRSP. BATS listings are from TAQ Data. See supra note 52.

    57 For the exchanges in the CRSP data (NYSE, NYSE American, Nasdaq, and NYSE Arca), this category (Not Trading) includes listings that were halted, suspended, not trading, or whose listing status was not known in the following year. For the exchange from the TAQ data (BATS), this column includes listings that were not in the TAQ master file in the following year.

    Trading in Covered Securities is segmented from trading in securities that are not covered (“OTC trading”). In addition to trading on Named or Designated Markets, Covered Securities can also trade on 12 other registered national securities exchanges or off-exchange either on 35 alternative trading systems (“ATSs”) or by broker-dealers who internalize orders. The market to trade Covered Securities on Named and Designated Markets as well as other trading platforms is more liquid than OTC trading of securities that are not Covered Securities due to, among other things, the search costs associated with finding buyers and sellers in OTC markets.58

    58See, e.g., Ulff Brüggemann, Aditya Kaul, Christian Leuz & Ingrid M. Werner, The Twilight Zone: OTC Regulatory Regimes and Market Quality, (Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 19358, 2013), available at https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/19358.html.

    Covered Securities can trade on exchanges and other markets that do not “list” the security. This flexibility allows trading platforms to compete with each other by offering better trading services or innovative trading mechanisms to attract order flow for securities, even if they do not list such securities. The order flow from these securities, through the application of transaction fees, can generate revenue for an exchange. Exchanges also receive revenue from the sale of SIP data, determined, in part, from an exchange's share of transaction volume.59 Listing exchanges currently enjoy a larger trading market share in their listed securities.60

    59See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594, 3600-01 (January 21, 2010) (Concept Release on Equity Market Structure) (Commission concept release discussing the revenues and expenses from data fees at that point in time).

    60 For the purposes of this rulemaking, staff examined TAQ Data for the time period of November through December 2014. Staff observed that exchanges tend to enjoy more than 15% higher market share in the securities they list compared to the securities they do not list, on average, and they tend to enjoy about 20% higher market share in the securities they list compared to the market share of others' trading in those securities, on average.

    Despite the historical advantages listing exchanges enjoy in the market for trading services, the success of listing exchanges when competing for equity issue listings by offering better trading services or innovative trading mechanisms has declined over the past decade.61 During this time, the increase in fragmentation in the market for trading services resulted in a significant shift in the market share of trading volume in Covered Securities across trading venues. For example, the two exchanges historically with the highest trading volume, NYSE and Nasdaq, have each experienced a sharp decline in market share of trading volume in securities they list. The market share of the NYSE in NYSE-listed stocks fell from approximately 80% in 2005 to 20% in 2013; for Nasdaq-listed stocks, Nasdaq's market share of Nasdaq-listed stocks fell by approximately half, from 50% in 2005 to 25% in 2013.62

    61See James Angel, Lawrence Harris & Chester Spatt, Equity Trading in the 21st Century: An Update (2013), available at http://www.q-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Equity-Trading-in-the-21st-Century-An-Update-FINAL1.pdf.

    62See id. at 20-21.

    The competition for trading services is not limited to exchanges. Over the past decade, greater trading volume has been executed on other venues, including ATSs. Since the third quarter of 2009, the number of ATSs that trade NMS stocks has increased from 32 to 34, while the share of trading volume of Covered Securities that trade on ATSs has increased from 7.9% to 13.0%.63 This suggests that the importance of ATSs for trading services has increased relative to Named and Designated Markets, and that the listing exchange of a security may be less important in determining the location of trading activity.

    63See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47) (definition of NMS Stock) (“NMS stock means any NMS security other than an option.”) and 17 CFR 242.600(46) (definition of NMS security) (“NMS security means any security or class of securities for which transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective national market system plan for reporting transactions in listed options.”). The estimates of ATSs that trade NMS stocks and ATS trade volume share was developed using weekly summaries of trade volume collected from ATSs pursuant to FINRA Rule 4552. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76474 (November 18, 2015), 80 FR 80998, 81109 (December 28, 2015) (Regulation of NMS Stock Alternative Trading Systems). The estimates in this release were done in the same manner as in the cited release. See also OTC (ATS & Non-ATS) Transparency, FINRA, http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/MarketTransparency/ATS/.

    B. Impact on Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation

    Securities Act Section 2(b) 64 requires the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking that requires it to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

    64See 15 U.S.C. 77b(b).

    1. Efficiency

    By listing on IEX, security issuers that otherwise would have not listed their securities on a Named or Designated Market would be able to avoid the duplicative costs of securities registration in multiple jurisdictions and thus reduce the impediments to listing on exchanges, which in turn can improve market efficiency. To the extent that the proposed amendment results in increased listing activity, then it may improve the allocative efficiency of securities markets by allowing investors to better diversify financial risks by investing in newly-listed securities.

    However, these two impacts may be mitigated by the extent to which issuers' abilities to list on a Named or Designated Market are constrained by other factors, such as their ability to satisfy listing standards and the attendant costs from doing so. For example, issuers may face increased disclosure costs associated with becoming an SEC reporting company if they are not already an SEC reporting company because issuers must be an SEC reporting company to list on a national securities exchange.65 Moreover, issuers that are able to meet the listing standards of IEX are likely to be able to meet the listing standards of other Named or Designated Markets, so the entry of IEX would not necessarily increase the pool of securities eligible for listing. As a result, the Commission preliminarily believes that the number of issuers that would list on IEX, where, in the absence of the proposed amendment, would not have listed at all, is likely to be small.66

    65See 15 U.S.C. 78(l)(b).

    66 See supra SectionVI.A.3.a, for further discussion.

    2. Capital Formation

    As noted in Section VI.A, a reason issuers list on a Named or Designated Market is improved access to capital. Listing on a Named or Designated Market may improve access to capital, which can promote capital formation, in several ways. First, listing on a Named or Designated Market may credibly signal to investors that a firm is of higher quality because firms that list on these exchanges must meet certain minimum standards for governance and disclosure set by listing on these exchanges. Like listed issuers on the Named and Designated Markets, IEX's listed issuers might benefit from the signal of quality that comes from listing on a Named or Designated Market compared to issuers that do not list. The reputational benefits that come from listing on a Named or Designated Market may make investors more willing to invest in such issuers, which may improve the issuers' access to capital, and promote capital formation.

    Second, listing on a Named or Designated Market may provide additional liquidity for equities relative to OTC trading, due in part to potential frictions to liquidity imposed by OTC search costs.67 If investors demand a liquidity risk premium,68 the enhanced liquidity could facilitate capital formation by reducing the size of the premium that issuers would otherwise incur when issuing new securities. Additionally, listing on a Named or Designated Market may promote access to capital by reducing the costs associated with broker-dealers ensuring their compliance with state securities laws in multiple jurisdictions, which would be borne by broker-dealers and potentially shared with investors, thus attracting broker-dealers and investors to transact in securities that list on a Named or Designated Market.69 Investors in securities that list on IEX as a result of the proposed amendment would have easier access to invest in those securities and to further diversify their investment portfolios, which may promote capital formation by improving allocative efficiency.70

    67See Darrell Duffie, Nicolae Garleanu & Lasse Heje Pedersen, Over-the-Counter Markets, 73 Econometrica 1815 (2005).

    68 Liquidity risk premia are the extra returns that investors demand because of the risks associated with investing in illiquid assets.

    69See supra Section VI.A.1.

    70See, e.g., John Heaton & Deborah J. Lucas, Evaluating the Effects of Incomplete Markets on Risk Sharing and Asset Pricing, 104 J. Pol. Econ. 443 (1996).

    Whether IEX entering the listing market promotes capital formation depends on the extent to which issuers previously unable or unwilling to list on a Named or Designated Market subsequently do so. Some issuers may, as a result of improved services and/or decreased fees stemming from the increased competition between listing exchanges, be induced to list on an exchange where, in the absence of the proposed amendment, they would not have. If so, then the entrance of IEX could provide issuers with lower cost access to capital.

    3. Competition

    The proposed amendment to Rule 146(b) would likely increase competition among the Named and Designated Markets that compete to list securities. By determining that IEX has “substantially similar” listing standards to the Named and other Designated Markets, the proposed amendment permits IEX to compete with other Named and Designated Markets to list securities that are exempt from state registration requirements. This would reduce the costs associated with complying with state securities laws in multiple jurisdictions that are borne by broker-dealers and such a reduction would potentially be shared with customers. As mentioned earlier, the Named and Designated Markets compete with each other on many dimensions, including listing standards, listing fees, and listing services. Besides permitting IEX to compete to list securities as a Designated Market, IEX's entry as a listing market might also provide incumbent listing markets with incentives to change how they compete with each other.71

    71See, e.g., Thierry Foucault & Christine A. Parlour, Competition for Listing, 35 Rand J. Econ. 329 (2004) (describing how, in equilibrium, competing exchanges obtain positive expected profits by offering different execution costs and different listing fees). See also supra note 61 and accompanying text.

    Generally, there are two ways that increased competition can affect how listing markets compete with each other. The first involves how the Named or Designated Markets compete to provide better services and value for listing issuers. For example, listing markets could reduce fees, improve services, or reduce compliance burdens associated with their listing standards.72 If an additional entrant competes by providing better listing and monitoring services or lower costs for issuers, incumbent listing exchanges may decide to follow suit.

    72See infra note 74 (discussing the Exchange Act filing requirements necessary for any revision to exchange listing standards and noting that such listing standards and changes to such listing standards are subject to the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder).

    The Named and Designated Markets also may compete to provide better services by increasing their level of specialization with respect to securities listings. As noted below, as in the case of BATS, some Named and Designated Markets may develop reputations for specializing in specific types of issues by catering to specific types of issuers. An increase in competitive pressures may cause the Named and Designated Markets to more closely cater to specific types of issuers. Specialization may reduce the cost of providing listing services or may promote innovation in the provision of listing services. To the extent that specialization improves the services provided to issuers or reduces the costs of these services, this competitive response may improve the efficiency of the market for listing services.

    The second way that increased competition can affect how the Named and Designated Markets compete with each other is through their role as intermediaries. The Named and Designated Markets serve as information and reputation intermediaries partly through their listing standards. Because issuers cannot perfectly signal their quality, the reputation of a Named or Designated Market for strict listing standards may be informative to an investor and serve as a signal of the quality of an issuer.73 Issuers that are able to meet the listing standards of a Named or Designated Market can signal their ability to do so by listing on them. However, because complying with these listing standards may be costly for issuers, issuers weigh the benefits of higher quality signaling through stronger listing standards against the costs of compliance with these standards. The Named and Designated Markets thus balance the competitive incentives to cater to two different groups of market participants—issuers and investors.

    73 See Stewart C. Myers & Nicholas S. Majluf, Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have Information That Investors Do Not Have, 13 J. Fin. Econ. 187 (1984), available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304405X84900230, for a discussion of the role of asymmetric information in corporate finance. See also Nathalie Dierkens, Information Asymmetry and Equity Issues, 26 J. Fin. & Quantitative Analysis 181 (1991), available at www.jstor.org/stable/2331264, for empirical evidence of asymmetric information in the equity issue process.

    Because the Named and Designated Markets serve as information and reputation intermediaries between issuers and investors, the impact of increased competition on listing standards is ambiguous. The Named and Designated Markets may respond to increased competition by increasing listing standards to provide additional signaling and attract investors. Alternatively, the Named and Designated Markets could instead respond to increased competition by decreasing listing standards to attract additional listings. The intermediaries' opposing incentives to cater to these two groups of market participants make predicting the impact of competition on listing standards difficult.

    The Named and Designated Markets' ability to lower standards would be constrained by the fact that 1. any proposed listing standards or proposed changes to existing listing standards must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and must meet statutory and rule requirements to become effective,74 and 2. an exchange with lower listing standards that are not substantially similar to those of a Named Market may lose its status as a Designated Market.75 The requirement that the listing standards of a Designated Market be substantially similar to those of a Named Market means that the listing standards of the Named Markets serve as a lower bound for the extent to which competition may drive down listing standards for the other exchanges.

    74 Any revision to exchange listing standards must be filed in accordance with Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder and is subject to the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    75See 17 CFR 230.146(b)(2).

    Despite the potential for increased competition, some of the features of the market for listings that inhibit competition, as discussed above, may also mitigate the effects of IEX's entry on competition. Specifically, some of the barriers to entry discussed in the baseline—economies of scale and network externalities—may make it difficult for IEX to effectively compete with incumbent exchanges for listings.76 For example, if a new entrant does not attract enough initial listings, the fixed cost of operations may make it difficult to keep its listing fees competitive. In addition, new entrants may not have established a sufficient reputation as a listing exchange to credibly certify the quality of its new issues. Thus, the structure of the market for listings may mitigate some of the potential effects of increased competition between Named and Designated Markets.

    76See supra Section VI.A.

    The latest example of an entrant into the market for listings is BATS BZX, which became a Designated Market in 2012.77 Table 2 in Section VI.A.3.a shows that the number of new listings on BATS decreased each year until 2015, but has increased more recently. While the growth in new listings by BATS may be indicative of the barriers to entry that entrants such as IEX face, circumstances specific to BATS may have impacted its ability during that period to attract listings.78

    77See Securities Act Release No. 9295 (January 20, 2012), 77 FR 3590 (January 25, 2012).

    78 As BATS noted in its registration statement filed with the Commission on December 15, 2015, “[O]n March 23, 2012, we experienced a serious technical failure on BZX, forcing us to cancel our planned IPO. . . . These technical failures damaged our reputation and resulted in increased regulatory scrutiny of the event by the SEC and other governmental authorities.”

    Table 3 in Section VI.A.3.a shows that almost none of the new listings on BATS arrived as transfers from another exchange, but were instead the first listing for each issuer that listed on BATS. This evidence is consistent with the argument that switching costs may also have had an impact on BATS' ability to gain market share, and may be a factor that also shapes IEX's entry. Moreover, the vast majority of BATS-listed securities are exchange-traded products. This is consistent with the idea that despite barriers to entry, BATS was able to enter by competing for one segment of the market and specializing in listing exchange-traded products.

    C. Analysis of Benefits and Costs

    If the Commission amends Rule 146(b) to include IEX, then securities listed, or authorized for listing, on IEX would be eligible to be designated as Covered Securities under Rule 146(b)(1) under the Securities Act, which, as described above, are exempt from state law registration requirements.79 In this section, we discuss the benefits and costs of the proposed amendment, which stem from its two major effects: (1) The exemption from Blue Sky laws provided to any issuers that would not list in the absence of the proposed amendment; and (2) the entry of IEX into the market for listings as a Designated Market.

    79 Rule 146 and Section 18 have no effect on Federal registration requirements, which are addressed by Section 5 of the Exchange Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78e. Section 18 of the Securities Act states that no law, rule, regulation, or order, or other administrative action of any State or any political subdivision thereof requiring, or with respect to, registration or qualification of securities, or registration or qualification of securities transactions, shall directly or indirectly apply to a covered security. See 15 U.S.C. 77r(a)(1)(A).

    As noted above, the Commission is unable to quantify all of the economic effects of the proposed amendment because it lacks the information necessary to provide reasonable estimates. The Commission seeks comment on any information on these factors or information that would help it directly quantify the economic effects of the rule.

    1. Benefits of the Proposed Amendment

    The proposed amendment could provide benefits, flowing from the exemption from Blue Sky laws, to currently unlisted issuers that do not currently list on an existing Named or Designated Market but would choose to list on IEX.80 Specifically, the proposed amendment permits these issuers of Covered Securities that list on IEX to avoid the potentially duplicative costs of complying with multiple state securities regulations. As mentioned previously, these duplicative costs could include both a fixed cost of registration and ongoing compliance costs. An unlisted issuer needs to register in each of the jurisdictions it wants to transact in, so if the proposed amendments increase the number of issuers that list, such issuers save these costs. To the extent that IEX attracts previously unlisted issuers, IEX may benefit as a result of revenue from listing fees, trading fees, and data fees associated with the new issuers. In addition, absent the proposed amendment, the heterogeneity in state securities regulations generates ongoing costs for broker-dealers and investors transacting in multiple jurisdictions.81 However, the overall magnitude of these benefits depends on the number of currently unlisted issuers that choose to list on IEX as a result of the proposed amendment, and the Commission preliminarily believes this number is likely to be small because any unlisted issuer able to meet the listing standards of IEX is likely to be able to meet the listing standards of the other Named and Designated Markets.82

    80 Data to estimate the number of such issuers does not exist, but the Commission preliminarily believes that the numbers of such issuers is likely to be small, as any issuers that can meet the listing standards of IEX are likely to be able to meet the listing standards of the incumbent Named or Designated Markets.

    81See supra Sections VI.A.1 and VI.B.1.

    82See Table 2, supra Section VI.A.3.a, and accompanying text.

    More generally, by making IEX a Designated Market, the proposed amendment would benefit IEX by allowing it to compete in the listing market for Covered Securities on a more level playing field with similarly situated national securities exchanges.83 Specifically, being able to list Covered Securities would allow IEX to more effectively compete with the incumbent Named and Designated Markets that also are able to offer Covered Securities status. This would also benefit issuers that choose to list securities on a Named or Designated Market by providing them with another alternative venue on which to list. Furthermore, adding IEX as an entrant into this market would increase the number of competitors in the market for listings. To the extent that the existing Named and Designated Markets respond to this increased competition by reducing listing fees or improving listing services, as discussed above, currently listed issuers and their investors may benefit from the improved quality of listing services, reduced listing fees or reduced compliance costs. In addition, to the extent that the entry of IEX increases the specialization of incumbent Named and Designated Markets, issuers may benefit from listing services that are more tailored to their needs.

    83 The Commission acknowledges that this benefit to IEX may come at the expense of the existing Named and Designated Markets, who may lose a portion of their current share to a new entrant. See infra Section VI.D.

    Although the direct effect of the proposed amendment may reduce the costs associated with registering in multiple jurisdictions, the Commission notes that issuers already have other Named and Designated Markets as options to list, and are likely to be able to meet the listing standards of these other markets if they would be able to list on IEX. IEX's entry into the market for listings may have a larger impact on issuers by increasing the amount of competition between Named and Designated Markets, rather than through the direct provision of Covered Securities status provided to securities that list on IEX. An increased amount of competition between Named and Designated Markets may improve listing services, reduce listing fees, and issuer specialization, which may benefit issuers.84

    84See supra Section VI.B.3.

    Last, issuers that choose to list on a Named or Designated Market because of IEX's entry may impact the trading of those issuers' securities on markets that are not Named or Designated Markets. As noted in the baseline, securities that list on a Named or Designated Market may also trade on exchanges that are not Named or Designated Markets, which may bring them additional revenue from trades.85 Exchanges that are not Named or Designated Markets may thus benefit from the entry of IEX into the market for listings, even if these exchanges do not directly compete with IEX or the Named or Designated Markets for listings business.

    85See supra Section VI.A.1.

    2. Costs of the Proposed Amendment

    The Commission notes that the overall magnitude of costs associated with the loss of state oversight depends on the number of unlisted issuers that choose to list as a result of the proposed amendment, and the Commission preliminarily believes this number is likely to be small, if any, for the reasons noted above.86 For unlisted issuers that choose to list on IEX as a result of the proposed amendment, listing on IEX may entail costs from a loss of state oversight and compliance costs arising from new reporting obligations from IEX's listing standards. However, we note that these issuers would only choose to list on IEX and bear these costs if they decided that the benefits of listing on IEX justified the costs.

    86See Table 2, supra Section VI.A.3.a, and accompanying text.

    The Commission preliminarily believes that any costs to investors from a loss of state oversight for such issuers would be mitigated by federal regulations and oversight of IEX and the other Named and Designated Markets and the requirement to meet their respective listing standards. Indeed, Congress, in Section 18, has already determined that federal regulation is sufficient for those issuers that meet the high listing standards of a Named/Designated Market. Furthermore, the Commission preliminarily believes that other regulatory protections (e.g., market surveillance, investigation and enforcement) already imposed on previously unlisted issuers who choose to list on IEX will mitigate these potential costs.

    Issuers who currently list on an existing Named or Designated Market that would switch to IEX would not experience potential costs from a loss of state oversight or compliance costs arising from new reporting obligations. However, any previously listed issuers that decide to change their listing from a Named or Designated Market to IEX would incur costs to switch their listing.87 Still, the issuers could choose whether or not to incur this cost and likely would do so only if the benefits of switching their listing exceed their switching costs.

    87 See supra Section VI.A.3.a, for a discussion of the sources of switching costs.

    D. Other Effects of the Proposed Amendment

    Some of the effects of the proposed amendments to IEX, incumbent Named and Designated Markets, and issuers involve transfers from one party to another. For example, the listing fees collected by IEX from previously-listed issuers may accompany a related loss of the listing fees collected by other Named or Designated Markets. Issuers that list on Named and Designated Markets may also enjoy savings from listing fee reductions as a result of increased listing exchange competition, which would also accompany a loss of listing fees collected by Named or Designated Markets.

    Additionally, as a result of changes to competition in the market for listings, the volume of trade in trading venues may shift, to the advantage of some venues and to the detriment of others. Changes to the Named or Designated Markets' shares of the market for listings may affect the distribution of trading volumes across Named and Designated Markets, as well as other trading venues. Commission staff estimates that an exchange captures an average of about 20% higher share of volume in the securities listed by that exchange compared to the market share of other exchanges trading the same securities.88 This result suggests that changes to listings driven by increased competition may alter the market share of trades distributed across each venue, even if the number of listed securities does not change, by about 20% of the volume in such securities. Any shifts in the market share of trading could result in gains and losses in transaction fees collected and the share of data fees split between exchanges. Although these gains and losses are relevant potential economic effects of the proposed amendment, the Commission preliminarily does not consider these transfers to be a benefit or cost of the proposed amendment, but rather a consequence of increased competition between listings.89

    88See supra note 60. Using TAQ data, Commission staff estimates that listing exchanges have around 28.8% of the dollar volume in the securities they list compared to other exchanges' average of about 3.3% of the dollar volume. Staff observed that each listing exchange enjoys a higher market share of dollar volume in its listed securities than any other exchange trading the listing exchange's listed securities. Staff also observed that these differences were not only economically large, but that they were also statistically significant.

    89 In light of the relevant statutory language and in the context of this particular proposed rulemaking, we do not believe there are reasonable alternatives to this proposal to designate securities listed on IEX as covered securities.

    E. Request for Comment

    The Commission seeks comment and supporting information as to the costs and benefits associated with this rule amendment, including identification and assessments of any costs and benefits not discussed in this analysis, and the effects on efficiency, capital formation and competition. We solicit comments on the usefulness of the rule amendment to investors, reporting persons, registrants, and the marketplace at large. We encourage commentators to identify, discuss, analyze, and supply relevant data, information, or statistics regarding any such costs or benefits, as well as any costs and benefits not already defined. We also request qualitative feedback on the nature of the benefits and costs described above. Additionally, we request comment on the extent of any costs that may be attributable to any loss of protections that currently are afforded by the state registration process, such as any merit-based requirements imposed by states on issuers. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following:

    1. Has the Commission accurately described the baseline for the economic analysis? What are the typical costs of registering securities in multiple states? In how many states do issuers that qualify or are close to qualifying to list register? What are the typical attorney fees and other costs for registering securities in multiple states?

    2. Has the Commission accurately described the competitive landscape for the market for listing Covered Securities? Has the Commission accurately described the competitive landscape for the market for trading services?

    3. Does the proposing release discuss all relevant markets and forms of competition? If not, which additional markets or forms of competition could the proposal impact and what is the current competitive landscape in those markets?

    4. Has the Commission accurately identified all market participants that would be affected by the proposed amendments to Rule 146? Which market participants do commenters believe would be affected by the proposed amendments but have not been included in the analysis?

    5. Has the Commission accurately identified the potential impacts on efficiency, competition, and capital formation?

    6. Has the Commission accurately identified and explained the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments to Rule 146?

    a. Has the Commission accurately described the benefits to issuers and investors that would choose to list on IEX should IEX become a Designated Market?

    b. Has the Commission accurately described the benefits to investors, IEX and other Designated Markets as a result of IEX becoming a Designated Market?

    c. Has the Commission accurately described the costs to investors in securities of issuers that will choose to list on IEX should IEX become a Designated Market?

    d. Has the Commission accurately described the costs to issuers of securities that will choose to list on IEX should IEX become a Designated Market?

    e. Has the Commission accurately described the costs to IEX and other Designated Markets as a result of IEX becoming a Designated Market?

    7. Are there benefits or costs that could be quantified or otherwise monetized? The Commission encourages commenters to provide specific estimates or data.

    8. In light of the relevant statutory language and in the context of this particular proposed rulemaking, are there reasonable alternatives to this proposal to designate securities listed on IEX as covered securities?

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 90 requires the Commission to undertake an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposed amendment to Rule 146 on small entities, unless the Commission certifies that the proposed amendment, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.91 For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an issuer is a small business if its “total assets on the last day of its most recent fiscal year were $5 million or less.” 92 In addition, an exchange is a small entity if it is an exchange that is exempt from the reporting requirements of Rule 601 under Regulation NMS, and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small organization.93

    90 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    91 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    92 17 CFR 230.157. See also 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).

    93 17 CFR 240.0-10(e).

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposal to amend Rule 146(b) would not affect a substantial number of small entities because IEX is not a small entity. Further, to list its securities on IEX, an issuer's aggregate market value of publicly held shares would be required to be at least $5 million. If an entity's market value of publicly held shares were at least $5 million, it is reasonable to believe that its assets generally would be worth more than $5 million. Therefore, an entity seeking to list securities on IEX pursuant to IEX's listing standards generally would have assets with a market value of more than $5 million and thus would not be a small entity.

    Accordingly, the Commission hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,94 that amending Rule 146(b) as proposed would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission encourages written comments regarding this certification. The Commission solicits comment as to whether the proposed amendment to Rule 146(b) could have an effect that has not been considered. The Commission requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to support the extent of such impact.

    94 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    VIII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    For purposes of the Small Business Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, a rule is “major” if it results or is likely to result in:

    1. An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

    2. a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or

    3. significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or innovation. 95

    95 Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996) (codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C., and as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601).

    The Commission requests comment regarding the potential impact of the proposed amendment on the economy on an annual basis. Commenters should provide empirical data to support their views to the extent possible.

    IX. Statutory Authority and Text of the Proposed Rule

    The Commission is proposing an amendment to Rule 146 pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933,96 particularly Sections 18(b)(1)(B) and 19(a).97

    96 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.

    97 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(B) and 77s(a).

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 230

    Securities.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 230—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 1. The authority citation for part 230 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-7 note, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-28, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37, and Pub. L. 112-106, sec. 201(a), sec. 401, 126 Stat. 313 (2012), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 230.146 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 230.146 Rules under section 18 of the Act.

    (b) * * *

    (1) For purposes of Section 18(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 77r), the Commission finds that the following national securities exchanges, or segments or tiers thereof, have listing standards that are substantially similar to those of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), the NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”), or the National Market System of the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq/NGM”), and that securities listed, or authorized for listing, on such exchanges shall be deemed covered securities:

    (i) Tier I of the NYSE Arca, Inc.;

    (ii) Tier I of the NASDAQ PHLX LLC;

    (iii) The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated;

    (iv) Options listed on Nasdaq ISE, LLC;

    (v) The Nasdaq Capital Market;

    (vi) Tier I and Tier II of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; and

    (vii) Investors Exchange LLC.

    (2) The designation of securities in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section as covered securities is conditioned on such exchanges' listing standards (or segments or tiers thereof) continuing to be substantially similar to those of the NYSE, NYSE American, or Nasdaq/NGM.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: July 14, 2017. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15216 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0656; FRL-9965-13-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Florida: Unnecessary Rule Removal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on February 20, 2013. The revision removes unnecessary and superseded rules from the Florida State Implementation Plan. Specifically, this revision removes non-regulatory introductory language, as well as a regulation that has been superseded by more stringent federal regulations. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0656 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:

    Sean Lakeman, 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. Lakeman can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9043 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: July 7, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15267 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED 41 CFR Part 51-11 RIN 3037-AA04 Touhy Regulations AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) is proposing procedures to use in responding to subpoenas or other official demands for information and testimony served upon itself or its employees.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Timi Kenealy, (703) 603-2100, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Committee, operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission, administers the AbilityOne Program pursuant to the authority of 41 U.S.C. 8501. Through this program, employment opportunities are provided to people who are blind or severely disabled through the provisions of products and services to the Federal Government.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301, the head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. The part does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.

    The United States Supreme Court held in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), that the head of a federal agency may make the determination on his/her sole authority to produce documents and authorize employee's testimony in response to a subpoena or other demand for information.

    This proposed regulation will govern the Committee's procedures for authorizing or denying such demands. In addition to updating this section for the Touhy case, the Committee is taking this opportunity to make technical corrections to include changes to the mailing address and changing “JWOD” to “AbilityOne” the operating name of the agency since 2010. Changes to this section of the CFR were last made in 1994.

    Regulatory Analysis Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule benefits the public and the United States Government by providing clear procedures for members of the public and Government employees to follow when official testimony or official documents, records, files or information are sought from the Committee or from Committee personnel in connection with legal proceedings. This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory action.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2016, that threshold is approximately $146 million. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

    Public Law 96-354, Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Committee certifies this proposed rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 6) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will provide clarity to U.S. Government personnel and outside counsel on the proper rules and procedures to serve process on U.S. Government officials in their official capacity and to obtain official U.S. Government testimony or documents for use in legal proceedings. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require the Committee to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This rule will not have a substantial effect on the States; the relationship between the National Government and the States; or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.

    Public Law 96-511, Paperwork Reduction Act

    It has been determined that this rule does not impose reporting or record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 51-11

    Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Disclosure, Exemptions, Government employees, Subpoenas, Records, Testimony.

    For the reasons set forth above, the Committee proposes to amend chapter 51 of title 41 by adding part 51-11 to read as follows: PART 51-11—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE IN FEDERAL AND STATE PROCEEDINGS Sec. 51-11.1 Scope and purpose. 51-11.2 Applicability. 51-11.3 Definitions. 51-11.4 General prohibition. 51-11.5 Service of demand. 51-11.6 Filing requirements for demand for documents or testimony. 51-11.7 Factors the Committee will consider. 51-11.8 Processing demands. 51-11.9 Final determination. 51-11.10 Restrictions that apply to testimony. 51-11.11 Restrictions that apply to released records. 51-11.12 Procedure when a decision is not made prior to the time a response is required. 51-11.13 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling. 51-11.14 Fees. 51-11.15 Penalties. Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 85039d.

    PART 51-11—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE IN FEDERAL AND STATE PROCEEDINGS
    § 51-11.1 Scope and purpose.

    (a) This part sets forth policies and procedures of the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) regarding the testimony of current and former employees as witnesses and the production or disclosure of Committee documents or information:

    (1) In all federal and state proceedings in which the United States is a party; and

    (2) In all federal and state proceedings in which the United States is not a party, when a demand pursuant to a subpoena, order or request (collectively referred to in this part as a “demand”) of a court or other authority is issued for such material, testimony, or information.

    (b) The Committee intends these provisions to:

    (1) Promote economy and efficiency in its programs and operations;

    (2) Minimize the possibility of involving the Committee in controversial issues not related to its functions;

    (3) Prevent the misuse of the Committee's employees as involuntary expert witnesses for private interests or as inappropriate expert witnesses as to the state of the law;

    (4) Maintain the Committee's impartiality among private litigants where neither the Committee nor any other Federal entity is a named party; and

    (5) Protect sensitive, confidential information and the deliberative processes of the Committee.

    (c) In providing for these requirements, the Committee does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

    (d) This part provides guidance for the internal operations of the Committee. The procedures specified in this part, or the failure of any Committee employee to follow the procedures specified in this part, are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States.

    § 51-11.2 Applicability.

    This part applies to demands and requests to employees of the Committee in legal proceedings, for factual or expert testimony relating to official information or for production of official records or information. However, it does not apply to:

    (a) Demands for a current Committee employee to testify as to facts or events that are unrelated to his or her official duties or that are unrelated to the functions of the Committee;

    (b) Demands for a former Committee employee to testify as to matters in which the former employee was not directly or materially involved while at the Committee;

    (c) Requests for the release of non-exempt records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (41 CFR part 51-8), or the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (41 CFR part 51-9); and

    (d) Congressional or Government Accountability Office (GAO) demands and requests for testimony or records.

    § 51-11.3 Definitions.

    As used in this part:

    Committee means the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    Committee employee or employee means:

    (1) Any current or former officer or employee of the Committee;

    (2) Any other individual hired through contractual agreement by or on behalf of the Committee or who has performed or is performing services under such an agreement for the Committee; and

    (3) Any individual who served or is serving in any consulting or advisory capacity to the Committee, whether formal or informal.

    (4) Provided, that this definition does not include persons who are no longer employed by the Committee and who are retained or hired as expert witnesses or who agree to testify about general matters available to the public, or matters with which they had no specific involvement or responsibility during their employment with the Committee.

    Demand means a subpoena, request, or an order or other command of a court or other competent authority, for the production, disclosure, or release of records or information related to, for the appearance and testimony of a Committee employee that is issued in a legal proceeding.

    General Counsel means Committee General Counsel or Committee employee to whom the General Counsel has delegated authority to act under this part.

    Legal proceeding means any matter before a court of law, administrative board or tribunal, commission, administrative law judge, hearing officer, or other body that conducts a legal or administrative proceeding. Legal proceeding includes all phases of discovery, litigation and informal requests by attorneys or others involved in legal proceedings seeking interviews or the like.

    Records or official records and information mean all documents and materials, however stored, that is in the custody and control of the Committee, relating to information in the custody and control of the Committee, or acquired by a Committee employee in the performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status, while such individual was employed.

    Request means any informal request, by whatever method, for the production of records and information or for testimony which has not been ordered by a court or other competent authority.

    Testimony means any written or oral statements, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, recorded interviews, and statements made by an individual in connection with a legal proceeding.

    § 51-11.4 General prohibition.

    (a) In any federal or state case or matter in which the United States is not a party, no employee or former employee of the Committee shall, in response to a demand, produce any record contained in the files of the Committee, or disclose any information relating to or based upon record contained in the files of the Department, or disclose any information or produce any record acquired as part of the performance of that person's official duties or because of that person's official status without prior written approval of the General Counsel in accordance with § 51-11.9.

    (1) Whenever a demand is made upon an employee or former employee as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the employee shall immediately notify the General Counsel. The General Counsel shall follow procedures set forth in § 51-11.8.

    (2) If oral testimony is sought by a demand in any case or matter in which the United States is not a party, an affidavit, or, if that is not feasible, a statement by the party seeking the testimony or by his attorney, setting forth a summary of the testimony sought and its relevance to the proceeding, must be furnished to the General Counsel. Any authorization for testimony by a present or former employee of the Committee shall be limited to the scope of the demand as summarized in such statement.

    (3) When information other than oral testimony is sought by a demand, the General Counsel shall request a summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding.

    (b) In any federal or state case or matter in which the United States is a party, the General Counsel is authorized to reveal and furnish to any person, including an actual or prospective witness, a grand jury, counsel, or a court, either during or preparatory to a proceeding, such testimony, and relevant unclassified material, documents, or information secured by the employee or former employee of the Committee, as the General Counsel shall deem necessary or desirable to the discharge of the attorney's official duties: Provided, Such an attorney shall consider, with respect to any disclosure, the factors set forth in § 51-11.7.

    (1) If oral testimony is sought by a demand in a case or matter in which the United States is a party, an affidavit, or, if that is not feasible, a statement by the party seeking the testimony or by the party's attorney setting forth a summary of the testimony sought must be furnished to the agency attorney handling the case or matter.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (c) In appropriate cases, the General Counsel shall notify the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) of the demand and coordinate with the DOJ to file any appropriate motions or other pleadings.

    § 51-11.5 Service of demand.

    (a) Written demands directed to the Committee or requests for official records, information or testimony shall be served in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or applicable State procedures, as appropriate. If the demand is served by U.S. mail, it should be addressed to the General Counsel, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, VA 22202. The Committee's acceptance of service of a demand shall not constitute an admission or waiver of any objection with respect to the propriety of jurisdiction, service of process, venue or any other defense in law or equity available under applicable law.

    (b) If any doubt exists, whether a demand relates to purely personal matters or arises out of the performance of official duties, copies of the demand may be delivered to the General Counsel for such determination.

    § 51-11.6 Filing requirements for demands for documents or testimony.

    Compliance with the following requirements is required when issuing demands or requests for official records, information or testimony.

    (a) Requests must be in writing and must be submitted to the General Counsel. If a subpoena is served on the Committee or a Committee employee before submitting a written request and receiving a final determination, the Committee will object to the subpoena on grounds that it was not submitted in accordance with this part.

    (b) Written requests must contain the following information:

    (1) The caption of the legal proceeding, docket number, and name and address of the court or other authority involved;

    (2) A copy of the complaint or equivalent document setting forth the assertions in the case and any other pleading or document necessary to show the relevance of the information sought;

    (3) A detailed description of how the information sought is relevant to the issues in the legal proceeding, and a specific description of the substance of the testimony or records sought;

    (4) A statement as to how the need for the information outweighs the need to maintain any confidentiality of the information and outweighs the burden on the Committee to produce the records or provide testimony;

    (5) A statement indicating that the information sought is not available from another source, from other persons or entities, or from the testimony of someone other than a Committee employee, such as a retained expert;

    (6) If testimony is requested, the intended use of the testimony, a general summary of the desired testimony, and a showing that no document could be provided and used in lieu of testimony;

    (7) A description of all prior decisions, orders, or pending motions in the case that bear upon the relevance of the requested records or testimony;

    (8) The name, address, and telephone number of counsel to each party in the case; and

    (9) An estimate of the amount of time that the requester and other parties will require with each Committee employee for time spent by the employee to prepare for testimony, in travel, and for attendance at the legal proceeding.

    (c) The Committee reserves the right to require additional information to complete any request where appropriate.

    (d) Requests should be submitted at least 45 calendar days before the date that records or testimony is required. Requests submitted in less than 45 calendar days before records or testimony is required must be accompanied by a written explanation stating the reasons for the late request and the reasons for expedited processing.

    (e) Failure to cooperate in good faith to enable the General Counsel to make an informed decision may serve as the basis for a determination not to comply with the request.

    § 51-11.7 Factors the Committee will consider.

    The General Counsel in his or her sole discretion, may grant an employee permission to testify on matters relating to official information, or produce official records and information, in response to an appropriate demand or request. Among the relevant factors that the General Counsel may consider in making this decision are whether:

    (a) The purposes of this part are met;

    (b) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice;

    (c) The Committee has an interest in the decision that may be rendered in the legal proceeding;

    (d) Allowing such testimony or production of records would assist or hinder the Committee in performing its statutory duties or use the Committee resources in a way that will interfere with the ability of the Committee employees to do their regular work;

    (e) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be in the best interest of the Committee or the United States;

    (f) The records or testimony can be obtained from other sources;

    (g) The demand or request is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand or request arose;

    (h) Disclosure would violate a statute, Executive order or regulation;

    (i) Disclosure would reveal confidential, sensitive, or privileged information, trade secrets or similar, confidential commercial or financial information, otherwise protected information, or would otherwise be inappropriate for release;

    (j) Disclosure would impede or interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceedings, or compromise constitutional rights;

    (k) Disclosure would result in the Committee appearing to favor one private litigant over another private litigant;

    (l) Disclosure relates to documents that originate from another agency;

    (m) A substantial Government interest is implicated;

    (n) The demand or request is within the authority of the party making it;

    (o) The demand improperly seeks to compel a Committee employee to serve as an expert witness for a private interest;

    (p) The demand improperly seeks to compel a Committee employee to testify as to a matter of law; and/or

    (q) The demand or request is sufficiently specific to be answered.

    § 51-11.8 Processing demands or requests.

    (a) After service of a demand or request, the General Counsel will review the demand or request and, in accordance with the provisions of this part, determine whether, or under what conditions, to authorize an employee to testify on matters relating to Committee records and/or produce records.

    (b) The Committee will process requests in the order in which they are received. Absent exigent or unusual circumstances, the Committee will respond within 45 calendar days from the date of receipt. The time for response will depend upon the scope of the request.

    (c) The General Counsel may grant a waiver of any procedure described by this part where a waiver is considered necessary to promote a significant interest of the Committee or the United States or for other good cause.

    § 51-11.9 Final determination.

    The General Counsel makes the final determination on demands and requests for production of official records and information or testimony. All final determinations are within the sole discretion of the General Counsel. The General Counsel will notify the requester and the court or other authority of the final determination, the reasons for the grant or denial of the demand or request, and any conditions that the General Counsel may impose on the release of records or information, or on the testimony of a Committee employee.

    § 51-11.10 Restrictions that apply to testimony.

    (a) Conditions or restrictions may be imposed on the testimony of the Committee employees including, for example, limiting the areas of testimony or requiring the requester and other parties to the legal proceeding to agree that they will seek to file the transcript of the testimony under seal and that it will be used or made available only in the particular legal proceeding for which testimony was requested. The General Counsel may also require a copy of the transcript or testimony be provided to the Committee at the requester's expense.

    (b) The Committee may offer the employee's written declaration in lieu of testimony.

    (c) If authorized to testify pursuant to this part, an employee may testify as to facts within his or her personal knowledge, but, unless specifically authorized to do so by the General Counsel, the employee shall not:

    (1) Disclose confidential or privileged information;

    (2) Testify as to any information outside the scope of the General Counsel's authorization (see § 51-11.7); or

    (3) For a current Committee employee, testify as an expert or opinion witness with regard to any matter arising out of the employee's official duties or the functions of the Committee unless testimony is being given on behalf of the United States whether or not the United States is a party.

    § 51-11.11 Restrictions that apply to released records.

    (a) The General Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the release of official records and information, including the requirement that parties to the proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement to limit access and any further disclosure. The terms of the protective order or of a confidentiality agreement must be acceptable to the General Counsel. In cases where protective orders or confidentiality agreements have already been executed, the Committee may condition the release of official records and information on an amendment to the existing protective order or confidentiality agreement.

    (b) If the General Counsel so determines, original Committee records may be presented for examination in response to a demand or request, but they are not to be presented as evidence or otherwise used in a manner by which they could lose their identity as official Committee records, and they are not to be marked or altered. In lieu of the original records, certified copies will be presented for evidentiary purposes.

    § 51-11.12 Procedure when a decision is not made prior to the time a response is required.

    If a response to a demand or request is required before the General Counsel can make the determination previously referred to, the General Counsel when necessary, will provide the court or other competent authority with a copy of this part, inform the court or other competent authority that the demand or request is being reviewed, and seek a stay of the demand or request pending a final determination.

    § 51-11.13 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.

    If the court or other competent authority fails to stay the demand, the employee upon whom the demand or request is made, unless otherwise advised by the General Counsel, will appear at the stated time and place, produce a copy of this part, state that the employee has not been authorized to provide the requested testimony or produce documents, and respectfully decline to comply with the demand, citing United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). A written response may be offered to a request, or to a demand, if permitted by the court or other competent authority.

    § 51-11.14 Fees.

    (a) Generally. The General Counsel may condition the production of records or appearance for testimony upon advance payment of a reasonable estimate of the costs to the Committee.

    (b) Fees for records. Fees for producing records will include fees for searching, reviewing, and duplicating records, costs of attorney time spent in reviewing the demand or request, and expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information. Costs for employee time will be calculated on the basis of the hourly pay of the employee (including all pay, allowance, and benefits). Fees for duplication will be the same as those charged by the Committee in its Freedom of Information Act regulations at 41 CFR part 51-8.

    (c) Witness fees. Fees for attendance by a witness will include fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules. If no such fees are prescribed, witness fees will be determined based upon the rule of the Federal district court closest to the location where the witness will appear. Such fees will include cost of time spent by the witness to prepare for testimony, travel time and expenses, and for attendance in the legal proceeding.

    (d) Payment of fees. Witness fees for current Committee employees and any records certification fees shall be paid by check or money order presented to the Committee made payable to the United States Department of Treasury. Applicable fees for former Committee employees' testimony must be paid directly to the former employee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes.

    (e) Certification (authentication) of copies of records. The Committee Records Manager may certify that records are true copies in order to facilitate their use as evidence. Certification requests require 45 calendar days for processing and a fee of $15.00 for each document certified.

    (f) Waiver or reduction of fees. The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may, upon a showing of reasonable cause, waive or reduce any fees in connection with the testimony, production, or certification of records.

    (g) De minimis fees. Fees will not be assessed if the total charge would be $10.00 or less.

    § 51-11.15 Penalties.

    (a) An employee who discloses official records or information or gives testimony relating to official information, except as expressly authorized by the Committee, or as ordered by a Federal court after the Committee has had the opportunity to be heard, may face the penalties provided in 18 U.S.C. 641 and other applicable laws. Additionally, former Committee employees are subject to the restrictions and penalties of 18 U.S.C. 207 and 216.

    (b) A current Committee employee who testifies or produces official records and information in violation of this part may be subject to disciplinary action.

    Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations Pricing and Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15357 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123; DA 17-656] Petition for Partial Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, Suspension of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for partial reconsideration or suspension.

    SUMMARY:

    A Petition for Partial Reconsideration, or in the Alternative Suspension of Compliance Deadline (Petition), has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Sorenson Communications, LLC.

    DATES:

    Comments to the Petition must be filed on or before August 7, 2017. Reply Comments must be filed on or before July 31, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email: [email protected]; phone: (202) 418-2235.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 17-656, released July 7, 2017. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10530218217172/2017-05-30%20Sorenson%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20re%20RUE%20Profile.pdf. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office Pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

    Subject: Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order, DA 17-76, published at 82 FR 19322, April 27, 2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

    Federal Communications Commission. Karen Peltz Strauss, Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15302 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CC Docket No. 91-281; FCC 17-76] Calling Number Identification Service—Caller ID AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its Caller ID rules to allow carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID information in the limited case of threatening calls as an aid to law enforcement investigations. Media and law enforcement reports indicate that the number of threatening calls targeting schools, religious organizations, and other entities appears to be increasing dramatically. In many cases, the perpetrators block the Caller ID information, making it difficult to trace the threatening calls. The Commission's current rules require that carriers not reveal blocked Caller ID information or use that information to allow the called party to contact the caller. Recognizing that threatening callers do not have a legitimate privacy interest in having blocked Caller ID protected from disclosure, the Commission seeks to amend its Caller ID rules to permit carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID information in the limited case of threatening calls as an aid to law enforcement investigations.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before August 21, 2017, and reply comments are due on or before September 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by CC Docket No. 91-281 and/or FCC Number 17-76, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CC Docket No. 91-281.

    Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nellie Foosaner, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at: (202) 418-2925, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 17-76, adopted on June 22, 2017, and released on June 22, 2017. The full text of document FCC 17-76 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. A copy of document FCC 17-76 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CC Docket No. 91-281 into the Proceeding block).

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to: [email protected] or call CGB at: (202) 418-0530 (voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 17-76 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-rules-aid-investigation-threatening-calls.

    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 17-76 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that may result in modified information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    SYNOPSIS

    1. In the document FCC 17-76, the Commission proposes to amend its Caller ID rules to enable called parties and/or law enforcement to obtain blocked Caller ID information in connection with threatening calls. For purposes of document FCC 17-76, the Commission defines a “threatening call” as any call that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health.

    2. Based on reports of widespread and increasing numbers of threatening calls that have targeted schools, religious organizations and other entities, the Commission proposes amending § 64.1601 of its rules, which provides that “[n]o common carrier subscribing to or offering any service that delivers [the Calling Party Number (CPN)] may override the privacy indicator associate with an interstate call,” to ensure that all parties who receive threatening calls are not hindered by the Commission's rules in gaining timely access to CPN information that may allow them to identify threatening callers. Amending the Commission's Caller ID rules to permit threatened parties, law enforcement and security personnel of threatened entities to gain access to the CPN of threatening callers could promote public safety and provide administrative efficiencies over the current process, which necessitates addressing individual waiver requests on a case-by-case basis. Even when threatening calls prove to be a hoax, they can often result in substantial disruption and expenditure of public resources by law enforcement. The Commission therefore proposes to amend its rules to recognize an exemption from the privacy protections contained in § 64.1601(b) of its rules in the limited case of threatening calls. The Commission seeks additional comment on ways to facilitate the ability of law enforcement and security personnel to investigate and identify threatening callers while protecting the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers. In that regard, the Commission seeks comment on how to define the term “security personnel” to ensure that only the appropriate personnel responsible for the safety of any threatened entity has access to the information they require to perform their duties.

    3. Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules requires that carriers must act in accordance with the customer's privacy request that CPN not be passed on interstate calls. The Commission has recognized, however, certain exemptions to this requirement. The Commission has concluded, for example, that to the extent CPN-based services are used to deliver emergency services, privacy requirements should not apply to delivery of CPN to a public agency's emergency lines, a poison control line, or in conjunction with 911 emergency services. In these instances, the Commission concluded that Caller ID blocking mechanisms could jeopardize emergency services and therefore pose a serious threat to the safety of life and property. The Commission believes that threatening calls present equally compelling circumstances in which the need to ensure public safety, in accordance with the Commission's fundamental statutory mission, outweighs the threatening caller's interest in maintaining the privacy of his or her CPN.

    4. Specifically, the Commission proposes amending § 64.1601 of its rules to recognize an exemption to § 64.1601(b)'s of its rules prohibition on overriding a privacy indicator associated with an interstate call when such call contains a threat of a serious nature. For purposes of this context, the Commission proposes defining a “threatening call” as any call that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health. The Commission seeks comment on this definition and on any alternatives. Accordingly, the Commission proposes adding an exemption in § 64.1601(d) of its rules to exclude threatening calls from the privacy protections afforded by § 64.1601(b) of its rules.

    5. In this context, the Commission seeks comment on how evaluations should be made to determine whether a threat meets the proposed definition of a threatening call, including who should make that evaluation. Should the Commission require, for example, that otherwise restricted CPN be made available only after a law enforcement agency confirms that it constitutes a threat of a serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health? Would this approach provide sufficient privacy safeguards to ensure that blocked CPN is released only in those limited situations? Conversely, to what extent would involving law enforcement in this process hinder the ability of threatened parties to gain timely access to the CPN of threatening callers?

    6. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and any additional options that might aid law enforcement and threatened parties in obtaining the information they need to identify threatening callers. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate the provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely manner. How are carriers burdened today when law enforcement uses lawful processes to compel disclosure of call details? In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the potential burdens on small providers that may be asked to disclose information upon a report of a threatening call, including measures that could mitigate those burdens. The Commission recognizes that telecommunications systems utilized by threatened entities and relationships with their carriers may vary widely. The Commission therefore seeks the input of carriers on how best to facilitate the process of providing CPN information in a timely manner to parties that report a threatening call. Given the existing exemption for public agencies that deliver emergency services as noted above, the Commission also seeks comment on whether it should extend that exemption to non-public entities that provide emergency services such as private ambulance companies.

    7. Privacy. In proposing this amendment to the Caller ID rules, the Commission endeavors to ensure that this exemption is not abused and that the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers are not infringed, particularly when the calling party has a higher need for CPN blocking protections to mitigate the risk of personal injury, such as in the case of calls made from domestic violence agencies. When the Commission adopted the rule in 1994, it concluded based on an extensive record that “the calling public has an interest in exercising a measure of control over the dissemination of telephone numbers that must be reflected in federal policies governing caller ID services.” As a result, the Commission adopted a rule requiring carriers to offer per-call blocking of Caller ID and allowed carriers to continue offering per-line blocking as long as they also provided per-call unblocking. Because of this recognized privacy interest, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require anyone reporting a threatening call for purposes of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in conjunction with a law enforcement agency, so as to provide some assurance that the called party is not attempting to circumvent the privacy obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. Should access to restricted CPN be limited only to law enforcement authorities? Would the risk of abuse be further reduced by limiting application of this exemption only to non-residential entities such as schools, religious organizations, and other public and private business and governmental entities? Would excluding private individuals who are not typically the target of mass phone threats limit the potential for abuse of this exemption? The Commission notes, for example, that petitions seeking waivers on the basis of a pattern of threatening calls, including most press reports, relate to threatening calls that target entities such as these rather than private individuals. Finally, how would a carrier's obligations under section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) be affected? Is CPN that a caller intends to block protected by section 222 of the Act, and would a rule that requires or allows carriers to divulge blocked CPN conflict with section 222 of the Act?

    8. Are there other means to ensure that legitimate privacy protections are not infringed should the Commissions exempt threatening calls from the privacy requirements of § 64.1601(b) of its rules? The Commission notes, for example, that CGB, in granting waivers of the Commission's rule, has imposed certain conditions and obligations on entities granted waivers of § 64.1601(b) of its rules in the past to ensure that restricted CPN information is disclosed only to authorized personnel for purposes of investigating threatening calls, and hence, any legitimate expectation of privacy by non-threatening callers is adequately protected. These conditions typically include: (1) The CPN on incoming restricted calls not be passed on to the line called; (2) any system used to record CPN be operated in a secure way, limiting access to designated telecommunications and security personnel; (3) telecommunications and security personnel may access restricted CPN data only when investigating phone calls of a threatening and serious nature, and shall document that access as part of the investigative report; (4) transmission of restricted CPN information to law enforcement agencies must occur only through secure communications; (5) CPN information must be destroyed in a secure manner after a reasonable retention period; and (6) any violation of these conditions must be reported promptly to the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar conditions should be imposed on any party that obtains restricted CPN pursuant to the proposed exemption. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other proposals to achieve the Commission's objective in assisting threatened parties and law enforcement officials in identifying threatening callers in a timely manner.

    9. The Commission seeks comment on whether circumstances have changed since the Commission originally adopted § 64.1601 of its rules. At the time, the Commission rejected arguments that parts of the rule would infringe on callers' expectations of privacy and anonymity. This was in part because the rule would allow callers to choose to block passage of CPN by choosing either per-call or per-line blocking. Would this logic hold true if the Commission were to allow call recipients to demand that CPN be revealed by asserting that the call contained a threat? In concluding that compelling the transmission of CPN would not violate any privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, the Commission reasoned that callers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their phone numbers because those numbers are voluntarily exposed to the telephone company's equipment. Does this hold true today, and would it be true if callers intending to block CPN delivery could have it unblocked by a called party's assertion that a call contained a threat?

    The JCC Temporary Waiver

    10. Based on the large numbers of recent threats phoned in to the JCCs and the record compiled in this matter, the Commission confirms that good cause continues to exist to maintain the temporary waiver of § 64.1601(b) of its rules granted to JCCs and the carriers who serve them for disclosure of CPN associated with threatening calls to JCCs.

    11. In the event the Commission amends its rules to recognize an exemption for threatening calls as proposed herein, this waiver, along with other similar prior waivers, will be encompassed within the protections afforded by that exemption. In the meantime, this temporary waiver ensures that JCCs are afforded certainty that they will continue to have the necessary protections from threatening calls.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 17-76. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the DATES section. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 17-76, including the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    13. In recent years, media and law enforcement reports indicate that the number of threatening calls appears be increasing dramatically. In the past the Commission has addressed such situations on a case-by-case basis via a waiver process at the request of individual entities that report receiving threatening calls. In document FCC 17-76, the Commission takes steps to amend the Caller ID rules to ensure that law enforcement and threatened parties are not hindered in their ability to investigate and respond to threatening phone calls. The Commission recognizes the privacy interests of non-threatening callers that may have valid reasons to block their telephone numbers by limiting the proposal strictly to those situations that involve threatening calls of a serious and imminent nature while further limiting access to such restricted CPN information in the case of threatening calls only to those parties responsible for safety and security of the threatened party. The Commission proposes to amend the current process that necessitates addressing individual waiver requests on a case-by-case basis. The Commission proposes and seeks additional comment on ways to facilitate the ability of law enforcement and security personnel to investigate and identify callers while protecting the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers.

    14. Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend § 64.1601(d)(4)'s of its rules current list of exemptions by adding a new section (iv) to read: (4) CPN delivery—“(iv) Is made in connection with a threatening call. Upon report of such a threatening call, the carrier will provide any CPN of the calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible party.” The Commission proposes defining a “threatening call” as any called that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate the provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely manner.

    15. For privacy purposes, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require anyone reporting a threatening call for purpose of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in conjunction with a law enforcement agency to provide some assurance that the called party is not attempting to circumvent the privacy obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. The Commission also inquiries into the possibility of excluding private individuals, who are not typically the target of mass phone threats, from this exemption in order to limit the potential for abuse. The Commission notes, for example, that CGB has imposed certain conditions and obligations on entities granted waivers of § 64.1601(b) of its rules in the past to ensure that restricted CPN information is disclosed only to authorized personnel for purposes of investigating threatening calls, and hence, any legitimate expectation of privacy by non-threatening callers is adequately protected. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar conditions should be imposed on any party that obtains restricted CPN pursuant to the proposed exemption.

    Legal Basis

    16. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under sections 1-4 and 201 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, and 201.

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    17. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the SBA. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.8 million small businesses, according to the SBA.

    Wireline Carriers

    18. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

    19. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small businesses.

    20. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.

    21. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and other local service providers are small entities.

    22. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in the RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in the RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that the RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

    23. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities.

    24. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be considered small.

    Wireless Carriers

    25. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

    26. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” This category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities.

    27. All Other Telecommunications. All Other Telecommunications comprises, inter alia, “establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or VoIP services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,400 had annual receipts below $25 million per year. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities.

    Resellers

    28. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities.

    29. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities.

    30. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities.

    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    31. As indicated above, document FCC 17-76 seeks comment on a proposed amendment to the rules to require carriers to make available, upon report of a threatening call from the called party, any CPN of the calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible party. Until these requirements are defined in full, it is not possible to predict with certainty whether the costs of compliance will be proportionate between small and large providers. The Commission seeks to minimize the burden associated with reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for the proposed rules, such as modifying software, developing procedures, and training staff.

    32. Under the proposed rules, carriers will need to make the CPN of a calling party available to a threatened recipient of the call. They may need to work with law enforcement and the entity called to ensure there is a genuine threat in order to protect the privacy of the caller.

    Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    33. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    34. The Commission has proposed rules for carriers, upon report of a threatening call from the called party, to provide any CPN of the calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible party. The Commission requested feedback from small businesses in document FCC 17-76, and seeks comment on ways to make the proposed rules less costly. The Commission asks how to facilitate the provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes the administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely manner. The Commission seeks the input of carriers on how to best facilitate the process of providing CPN information in a timely manner to parties that report a threatening call. To help carriers protect privacy interests, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require anyone reporting a threatening call for purposes of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in conjunction with a law enforcement agency to provide some assurance that the called party is not attempting to circumvent the privacy obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. The Commission also asks whether excluding private individuals would limit the potential for abuse. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize the economic impact of its proposals, particularly to small businesses.

    35. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to document FCC 17-76 and the IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.

    Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    36. None.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology, Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

    PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 64.1600 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:
    § 64.1600 Definitions.

    (l) Threatening Call. The term “threatening call” means any call that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health.

    3. Amend § 64.1601 by revising paragraph (d)(4) (ii) through (iv) to read as follows:
    § 64.1601 Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions.

    (d) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ii) Is used on a public agency's emergency telephone line or in conjunction with 911 emergency services, or on any entity's emergency assistance poison control telephone line;

    (iii) Is provided in connection with legally authorized call tracing or trapping procedures specifically requested by a law enforcement agency; or

    (iv) Is made in connection with a threatening call. Upon report of such a threatening call, the carrier will provide any CPN of the calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible party.

    [FR Doc. 2017-15303 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 139 Friday, July 21, 2017 Notices AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors AGENCY:

    United States African Development Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The US African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration.

    DATES:

    The meeting date is Monday, July 31, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place via teleconference, with staff congregating at USADF, 1400 I St. Northwest, Suite # 1000 (Main Conference Room), Washington, DC 20005-2246.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marie-Cecile Groelsema, 202-233-8883.

    Authority:

    Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).

    Dated: July 18, 2017. June B. Brown, Interim General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15369 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Document Number AMS-NOP-17-0038; NOP-17-06] Notice of Meeting of the National Organic Standards Board AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting, via teleconference, of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is announcing a meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to discuss the development of a proposal on aeroponics/bioponics/hydroponics.

    DATES:

    August 14, 2017. 1:00 p.m. ET-3:00 p.m. ET.

    Conference Call: Instructions for accessing the teleconference are available on the AMS/NOP Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Michelle Arsenault, Advisory Committee Specialist, National Organic Standards Board, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2642-S, Mail Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268; Phone: (202) 720-3252; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NOSB members will discuss the development of proposals on aeroponics/bioponics/hydroponics for a future NOSB meeting. The NOSB will not be voting on a recommendation during this conference call. The NOSB makes recommendations to the Department of Agriculture about whether substances should be allowed or prohibited in organic production and/or handling, assists in the development of standards for organic production, and advises the Secretary on other aspects of the implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522).

    Public Comments: The NOSB will be meeting in October 2017 and may consider a proposal on aeroponics/bioponics/hydroponics at that time. The NOSB is accepting comments, both written and oral, through October 11, 2017. Written comments: Written public comments will be accepted on or before 11:59 p.m. ET October 11, 2017 via http://www.regulations.gov. Comments submitted after this date will be provided to the NOSB, but Board members may not have adequate time to consider those comments prior to making recommendations. The NOP strongly prefers comments to be submitted electronically, however, written comments may also be submitted (i.e., postmarked) by the deadline, via mail to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Oral Comments: Persons or organizations wishing to make oral comments must pre-register by 11:59 p.m. ET, October 11, 2017, and can only register for one speaking slot: Either during the webinar(s) scheduled for October 24 (and October 26 if needed) or at the in-person meeting, October 31, 2017. Due to the limited time allotted for in-person public comments, commenters are strongly encouraged to comment during the webinar(s). Instructions for registering and participating in the webinar can be found at www.ams.usda.gov/NOSBMeetings.

    Meeting Accommodations: USDA provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this public meeting, please notify the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Determinations for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15308 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 17, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by August 21, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Housing Service

    Title: 7 CFR 3575-A, Community Programs Guaranteed Loans.

    OMB Control Number: 0575-0137.

    Summary of Collection: The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is authorized by Section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926) to make loans to public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes for the development of essential community facilities primarily serving rural residents. The Community Facilities Division of the RHS is considered Community Programs under the 7 CFR, part 3575, subpart A. Implementation of the Community Programs guaranteed loan program was affected to comply with the Appropriations Act of 1990 when Congress allocated funds for this authority. The guaranteed loan program encourages lender participation and provides specific guidance in the processing and servicing of guaranteed Community Facilities loans.

    Need and Use of the Information: RHS will collect information in a written format and using several forms. RHS will use collected information to determine applicant/borrower eligibility, project feasibility, and to ensure borrowers operate on a sound basis and use loan funds for authorized purposes. Failure to collect proper information could result in improper determination of eligibility, improper use of funds, and/or unsound loans.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 680.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Quarterly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 12,401.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15282 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming, Landscape Vegetation Analysis (LaVA) Project AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on its proposed treatment of 150,000 acres of insect-infested areas of the Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF). The Forest Service believes this treatment is necessary to ensure the future health of the MBNF.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by August 21, 2017. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected in November 2017 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement is due in March 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to: LaVA Project, Medicine Bow National Forest, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, WY 82070, or via facsimile to 307-745-2467, c/o LaVA Project. Written comments may also be hand-delivered to the above address between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Mountain Time, Monday through Friday except federal holidays. Comments may also be submitted electronically at https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=51255.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Martin, Project Manager, at 307-745-2371. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-811-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF) has experienced epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle and spruce bark beetle infestations since the mid to late 1990s. Although the epidemic has slowed in recent years, the infestation has left behind a changed landscape consisting primarily of regenerating forests that have an overstory of large, dead and dying trees. Action is needed to accelerate management response to this major forest health event to proactively and adaptively respond to changing forest vegetation conditions.

    On March 22, 2017, Forest Service Chief Thomas L. Tidwell designated the majority of the MBNF as a landscape-scale insect and disease area under Section 602(d) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Action of 2003 (HFRA, 16 U.S.C. 6591 et seq.), as amended by Section 8204 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. These authorities provide for expedited environmental analysis and treatments to address areas affected by insect and disease infestations. Accordingly, the Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation Analysis (LaVa) Project will proceed according to Section 104 of the HFRA and will be subject to subparts A and C of the U.S. Forest Service Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process. Intended goals of the project include, but are not limited to, using tree cutting and/or prescribed burning to: make areas more resilient to future disturbance; restore, and enhance forest ecosystem components; supply forest products to local industries; provide for human safety; reduce wildfire risk to communities, infrastructure, and municipal water supplies; and improve, protect, and restore wildlife habitat.

    The LaVA analysis area encompasses the Snowy Range and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges of the MBNF and includes roughly 850,000 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands. Of the 850,000 acres, the Forest Service has identified roughly 575,000 acres wherein treatment activities could be proposed; these areas are termed `treatment opportunity areas' (TOAs). Actual treatments are proposed on a subset of the TOAs (150,000-350,000 acres), as described in the Proposed Action.

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the project is to respond to changed forest vegetation conditions presented by the bark beetle epidemics experienced on the MBNF. The approach is to actively manage forest vegetation using tree cutting and/or prescribed burning, consistent with the goals outlined in the Governor's Task Force on Forests (Final Report, 2015), the Western Bark Beetle Strategy (July 2011), and the Wyoming Statewide Forest Resource Strategy (2010). These goals include promoting recovery from the insect infestations, improving the resiliency of green stands to future disturbances, helping to protect forested areas on adjacent private and state land, and providing for human safety. These general goals will be adapted to local landscapes where treatments are needed based on Forest Plan direction, foreseeable conditions, and local environmental, social and economic concerns. The project is needed to:

    Enhance Forest and Rangeland Resiliency to Future Insect and Disease Infestations

    • Increase age class, structural, and vegetative diversity across the landscape;

    • Promote forest and rangeland conditions to improve forage and wildlife habitat; and

    • Actively accelerate recovery and regeneration of forest ecosystems.

    Provide for Recovery of Forest Products

    • Promote vegetation management to recover merchantable products; and

    • Provide commercial forest products to local industries at a level commensurate with Forest Plan direction and goals.

    Provide for Human Safety

    • Treat hazard trees in areas not covered by the Forest-wide Hazard Tree Decision Notice (August 12, 2008);

    • Treat hazard trees within and outside the wildland urban interface (WUI);

    • Increase the extent of defensible space around resources at risk; and

    • Create fuel breaks to slow or stop the progress of wildfires.

    Provide for Protection of Infrastructure, Municipal Water Supplies, and Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat

    • Treat vegetation adjacent to infrastructure and non-federally owned lands;

    • Treat vegetation to protect municipal water supplies and infrastructure; and

    • Treat vegetation where fire is identified as a threat to the habitat of a threatened or endangered species.

    Mitigate Hazardous Fuel Loading

    • Treat hazardous fuels to minimize the potential for large, high intensity/high severity wildfires; and

    • Treat hazardous fuels to reduce fire behavior and the possibility of fires spreading onto adjacent, non-federal lands.

    Proposed Action

    The Forest Service proposes to conduct vegetation management activities on NFS lands, including inventoried roadless areas, within the Sierra Madre and Snowy Range Mountain Ranges of the MBNF. Vegetation management activities, including prescribed fire, mechanical, and hand treatment methods, could be applied to 150,000-350,000 acres to protect, restore and enhance forest ecosystem components; reduce wildfire risk to communities and municipal water supplies; supply forest products to local industries; and improve, protect, and restore wildlife habitat. Treatments would be authorized over a 10-year period beginning in 2018 and would be completed within approximately 15 years of the project decision.

    Due to ever-changing conditions, the Proposed Action incorporates the principles of adaptive management in that it does not identify specific treatment units. Instead, it proposes a range of acres (150,000-350,000) that could be treated within the pre-established TOAs (575,000 acres). During project implementation, the Forest Service would cooperate with other agencies, local governments, interested stakeholders, and organizations to identify specific treatment units. Specific objectives of each treatment unit would be determined prior to any ground-disturbing activities using existing vegetation conditions and a series of project-developed field checklists. The sum of all treatments would not exceed 350,000 acres.

    Specifically, the Proposed Action would allow each of the following activities to occur within the pre-established TOAs:

    • Cutting trees or shrubs using a variety of treatment methods including, but not limited to, clearcutting/coppice; group and individual tree selection; salvage; mastication; sanitation; and thinning. Treatments would be designed to protect, restore, and enhance forest ecosystem components; supply forest products to local industries; provide for human safety; reduce wildfire risk to communities and municipal water supplies; and improve, protect, and restore wildlife habitat.

    • Cutting trees that have encroached on grass and shrub lands to maintain desired species dominance and improve wildlife habitat.

    • Prescribed burning areas using jackpot, pile burning, and broadcast burning. Maintenance burns on previously treated areas would occur to maintain desired fuels or habitat conditions.

    • Prescribed burning or tree/shrub cutting on portions of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). Treatment opportunity areas in IRAs were proposed by Cooperating Agencies and the Forest Service to protect communities at risk; threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife habitat; critical infrastructure; and municipal water supplies. No new permanent or temporary road construction would occur in IRAs.

    • Utilizing and/or reconstructing existing open and closed NFS roads to access treatment units. Reconstruction may include road blading, culvert installation or replacement, and gravelling. Closed NFS roads would be for administrative access only (i.e., they will be managed as closed to the public) and would be returned to a closed status with the method of closure being determined at implementation.

    • Constructing approximately 25 miles of new, permanent NFS roads, as necessary, to access treatment areas; the final assessment of road needs has not been determined and could be more or less. All newly constructed system roads would be physically closed to public motorized vehicle use following completion of treatment activities; however, their templates would be retained for future management entries.

    • Constructing approximately 1,000 miles of temporary road, as necessary, to access treatment areas; the final assessment of road needs has not been determined and could be more or less. While open, the roads would be for administrative use only (i.e., they would be managed as closed to the public). Temporary roads would be decommissioned following treatment activities to preclude future motorized use and to restore ecological function; decommissioning returns a road to a natural state. Decommissioning methods may include, but are not limited to, re-contouring the road, ripping/scarifying the roadbed, removing culverts, installing drainage features, creating physical barriers to preclude motorized travel, scattering wood/rock debris onto the road, applying seed and mulch to the area, and posting signs.

    • Conducting regeneration surveys, noxious weed control, native grass seeding, and road maintenance.

    • Using a combination of commercial timber sales, service contracts, stewardship contracts, cooperative authorities, partner capacity, and Forest Service crews to implement the project.

    Adaptive Management Process: Due to the adaptive nature of the Proposed Action (i.e., a range of treatment acres v. identification of specific treatment units), the Forest Service will develop standards, protocols, and monitoring requirements to guide project implementation. Under this scenario, the Forest Service would:

    • Complete all required surveys for each individual treatment area; complete required layout and marking of each treatment area; determine appropriate design features to be applied; and document compliance with requirements of the environmental impact statement using a set of pre-established field checklists.

    • Perform monitoring during and following implementation of individual treatment activities to ensure treatments are implemented as planned and that project objectives are being attained.

    • Establish an annual monitoring review with interested stakeholders, partners, and collaborative groups to ensure treatments are implemented as planned and that project objectives are being attained.

    Possible Alternatives

    At a minimum, the environmental impact statement will disclose the effects of the Proposed Action and a No Action alternative. The No Action alternative represents no change from current conditions and serves as the baseline for the comparison among alternatives. An alternative to the Proposed Action may be developed in response to public comments.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Forest Supervisor of the MBNF is the deciding official for the LaVA Project. Once the NEPA analysis is completed, he will decide: Whether or not to implement, in part or full, the proposed actions or other alternatives; rationale for the decision; and design criteria, mitigation and monitoring requirements necessary for project implementation.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is important that reviewers provide comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. A more detailed scoping document may be accessed at http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=51255.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, they will not become part of the public record.

    Objection Process

    The Forest Service is operating under Part 218—Project-level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process (hereinafter referred to as `objection'), 36 CFR. 218 Subparts A and C, for this analysis. Per these regulations, individuals and entities who submit timely, specific written comments regarding a proposed project or activity during any designated opportunity for public comment will have standing to file an objection. This includes requests for comments during this initial scoping period as well as comments submitted during the 45-day comment period for the draft environmental impact statement.

    It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of established comment periods. Only those who submit timely and specific written comments will have eligibility (36 CFR 218.5) to file an objection under 36 CFR 218.8. For objection eligibility, each individual or representative from each entity submitting timely and specific written comments must either sign the comment or verify identity upon request. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to object must meet the information requirements in § 218.25(a)(3). Names and contact information submitted with comments will become part of the public record and may be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Dated: June 23, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15322 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice for Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comments requested.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's (RHS) intent to reinstate a previously approved information collection in support of the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by [60 days] to be assured of consideration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Jensen, Finance and Loan Analyst, Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Division, Stop 0784, Room 2250, USDA Rural Development, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0784, telephone (503) 894-2382, Email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program.

    OMB Number: 0575-0179.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Information Collection.

    Abstract: Under this program, loan guarantees are provided to participating lenders who make loans to income eligible borrowers in rural areas. The purpose of this program is to promote affordable housing for low- and moderate-income borrowers in rural America.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 49 minutes per response.

    Respondents: Private sector lenders participating in the Rural Development Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,476.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 737.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,087,927.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 821,112.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, at (202) 692-0040.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of USDA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of USDA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Stop 0742-1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 14, 2017. Bryan Hooper, Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15297 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 2:00 p.m. (Central Time) August 21, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss project topics of study.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, August 21, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. CDT.

    Public Call Information:

    Dial: 888-471-3820.

    Conference ID: 2807375.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-471-3820, conference ID number: 2807375. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=276. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Approval of June 28, 2017 Minutes III. Discussion on FY17 Civil Rights Project Ideas IV. Public Comment V. Next Steps VI. Adjournment Dated: July 18, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15353 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of planning meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, August 10, 2017. The purpose of the planning meeting is to review the Advisory Memorandum for its Bail Reform and Fines and Fees project and vote to submit the memorandum for Commission review.

    DATES:

    Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12 p.m. (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call-in information: Conference call-in number: 1-877-440-5787 and conference call ID: 1233406.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy L. Davis, at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-440-5787 and conference call ID: 1233406. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-440-5787 and conference call ID: 1233406.

    Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=253; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome and Introductions —Rollcall II. Review Advisory Memorandum III. Vote to Submit Advisory Memorandum for Commission Review IV. Other Business V. Adjournment Dated: July 18, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15368 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 2:00 p.m. (Alaska Time) Thursday, July 20, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss potential panelists to speak at the Alaska Native voting rights briefing.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 20, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. AKDT.

    Public Call Information:

    Dial: 877-719-9788.

    Conference ID: 2981918.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-719-9788, conference ID number: 2981918. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=234. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Approval of July 6, 2017 Minutes III. Discussion on In-Person Briefing • Identifying Categories of Panels • Identifying Speakers IV. Public Comment V. Next Steps VI. Adjournment Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of the committee needing to get preparations started for its August 2017 Alaska Native voting rights briefing. Dated: July 18, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15351 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the California Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the California State Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Wednesday, August 16, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss project topics of study.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 16, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. PDT.

    Public Call Information:

    Dial: 888-516-2447.

    Conference ID: 9545369.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-516-2447, conference ID number: 9545369. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=237. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Approval of June 12, 2017 Minutes III. Discussion on FY17 Civil Rights Project Ideas IV. Public Comment V. Adjournment Dated: July 18, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15352 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration First Responder Network Authority [Docket Number 160830796-6796-02] RIN 0660-XC030 Notice of Availability of a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the West Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network AGENCY:

    First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a final programmatic environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet”) announces the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the West Region (“Final PEIS”). The Final PEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed nationwide public safety broadband network in the West Region (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington).

    ADDRESSES:

    The Final PEIS is available for download from www.regulations.gov FIRSTNET-2017-0004. A CD of this document is also available for viewing at public libraries (see Chapter 14 of the Final PEIS for the complete distribution list).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information on the Final PEIS, contact Amanda Goebel Pereira, NEPA Coordinator, First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 256 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)) (the “Act”) created and authorized FirstNet to take all actions necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of an interoperable, nationwide public safety broadband network (“NPSBN”) based on a single, national network architecture. The Act meets a longstanding and critical national infrastructure need, to create a single, nationwide network that will, for the first time, allow police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical service professionals, and other public safety entities to effectively communicate with each other across agencies and jurisdictions. The NPSBN is intended to enhance the ability of the public safety community to perform more reliably, effectively, and safely; increase situational awareness during an emergency; and improve the ability of the public safety community to effectively engage in those critical activities.

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) (“NEPA”) requires federal agencies to undertake an assessment of environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a final decision and implementing the action. NEPA requirements apply to any federal project, decision, or action that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. NEPA also establishes the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), which issued regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (see 40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Among other considerations, CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.28 recommend the use of tiering from a “broader environmental impact statement (such as a national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analysis (such as regional or basin wide statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared.”

    Due to the geographic scope of FirstNet (all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories) and the diversity of ecosystems potentially traversed by the project, FirstNet has elected to prepare five regional PEISs. The five PEISs are divided into the East, Central, West, South, and Non-Contiguous Regions. The West Region consists of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The Final PEIS analyzes potential impacts of the deployment and operation of the NPSBN on the natural and human environment in the West Region, in accordance with FirstNet's responsibilities under NEPA.

    Now that this PEIS has been completed and once a Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed, the proposed FirstNet projects can begin to submit the site-specific environmental documentation to determine if the proposed project has been adequately evaluated in the PEIS or whether it instead warrants a Categorical Exclusion, an Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental Impact Statement.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Amanda Goebel Pereira, NEPA Coordinator, First Responder Network Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15312 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on September 27, 2017.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 27, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Building 215, Room C103, at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Please note admittance instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cheryl L. Gendron, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, telephone number (301) 975-2785, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The MEP Advisory Board is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69), as amended by the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, Public Law 114-329 (2017), and codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. By statute, the MEP Advisory Board provides the NIST Director with: (1) Advice on the activities, plans, and policies of the Program; (2) assessments of the soundness of the plans and strategies of the Program; and (3) assessments of current performance against the plans of the Program.

    Background information on the MEP Advisory Board is available at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, September 27, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting agenda will include an update on Hollings MEP programmatic operations, as well as provide guidance and advice to NIST on the development of the 2017-2022 Hollings MEP Strategic Plan. The MEP Advisory Board will also provide input to NIST on developing protocols that will connect user facilities, research, and technologies at NIST and other federal laboratories with the help of the Hollings MEP national network to support small and mid-size manufacturers, and make recommendations on how the Hollings MEP operates as a Learning Organization. This encompasses an effort to strengthen connections by sharing best practices and building Working Groups and Communities of Practice in furtherance of the Hollings MEP Program's mission. The final agenda will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

    Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. Requests must be received in writing before September 15, 2017, to be considered. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, or those who are/were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the MEP Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, via fax at (301) 963-6556, or electronically by email to [email protected]

    Admittance Instructions: All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, company name, time of arrival, email address and telephone number to Ms. Gendron by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Friday, September 15, 2017. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Ms. Gendron via email at [email protected] or phone (301) 975-2785. For participants planning to attend in person, please note that federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), or by a state that Start Printed Page 22648 has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of federally-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Ms. Gendron at 301-975-2785 or visit: http://nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

    Phillip A. Singerman, Associate Director for Innovations and Industry Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15325 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF549 Pacific Islands Pelagic Fisheries; American Samoa Longline Limited Entry Program AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; availability of permits.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that 12 American Samoa pelagic longline limited entry permits in three vessel size classes are available for 2017. NMFS is accepting applications for these available permits.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive completed permit applications and payment by November 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Request a blank application from the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, or the PIR Web site www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/SFD/Samoa_LE_App_Fillable_03Jun16.pdf. Mail your completed application and payment to: ASLE Permits, NOAA NMFS PIR, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Walter Ikehara, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS PIR, tel 808-725-5175, fax 808-725-5215, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Federal regulations at 50 CFR 665.816 allow NMFS to issue new permits for the American Samoa pelagic longline limited entry program if the number of permits in a size class falls below the maximum allowed. At least 12 permits are available for issuance, as follows:

    • Ten in Class A (vessels less than or equal to 40 ft in overall length);

    • One in Class B (over 40 ft to 50 ft); and

    • One in Class C (over 50 to 70 ft).

    Please note that the number of available permits may change before the application period closes.

    NMFS will only consider complete applications, which must include the completed and signed application form, evidence of documented participation in the fishery, and non-refundable payment for the application-processing fee.

    If NMFS receives more completed applications than the number of available permits for a given permit class, NMFS will prioritize applicants using the information in the applications and documentation provided by the applicants. If an applicant requests NMFS, in writing, to use NMFS longline logbook data as evidence of documented participation, the applicant must specify the qualifying vessel, official number, and month and year of the logbook records (NMFS will not conduct an unlimited search for records).

    Applicants with the earliest documented participation in the fishery on a Class A sized vessel will receive the highest priorities for obtaining permits in any size class, followed by applicants with the earliest documented participation in Classes B, C, and D, in that order. In the event of a tie in the priority ranking between two or more applicants, NMFS will rank higher the applicant whose second documented participation is earlier. Detailed criteria for prioritization of eligible applicants are in the regulations at 50 CFR 665.816(g).

    NMFS must receive applications by November 20, 2017 to be considered for a permit (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will not accept applications received after that date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 18, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15387 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List: Proposed deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products and services from the Procurement List that were previously by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: August 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8925-01-E62-1749—Walnuts, English, Shelled, Halves and Pieces, 2.75 lb. 8925-01-E62-1745—Almonds, Shelled, Sliced, Natural 8925-01-E62-1746—Almonds, Shelled, Sliced, Blanched 8925-01-E62-1747—Almonds, Shelled, Slivered, Blanched 8925-01-E62-1748—Walnuts, English, Shelled, Halves and Pieces, 2 lb. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Transylvania Vocational Services, Inc., Brevard, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7210-01-076-1087—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 75″ 7210-01-076-1082—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 80″ 7210-01-076-1083—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 39″ x 78″ 7210-01-076-8359—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 38″ x 80″ 7210-01-076-9031—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 29″ x 76″ 7210-01-078-2593—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 78″ 7210-01-177-1492—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 80″ 7210-01-177-1494—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 38″ x 75″ 7210-01-177-1495—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 38″ x 80″ 7210-01-177-1497—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 53″ x 75″ 7210-01-177-1498—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 29″ x 76″ 7210-01-177-1499—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 75″ 7210-01-177-1500—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 78″ 7210-01-177-1501—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 80″ 7210-01-177-1503—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 38″ x 75″ 7210-01-177-1504—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 38″ x 80″ 7210-01-177-1505—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 39″ x 78″ 7210-01-177-1506—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Extra Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 53″ x 75″ 7210-01-177-1507—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Regular, White with Blue Stripes, 29″ x 76″ 7210-01-177-1508—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Regular, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 75″ 7210-01-177-1509—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Regular, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 78″ 7210-01-177-1510—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Regular, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 80″ 7210-01-177-1512—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Regular, White with Blue Stripes, 38″ x 75″ 7210-01-177-1513—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Regular, White with Blue Stripes, 38″ x 80″ 7210-01-177-1514—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Regular, White with Blue Stripes, 39″ x 78″ 7210-01-177-1515—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type III, Regular, White with Blue Stripes, 53″ x 75″ 7210-01-177-3628—Mattress, Bed, Innerspring, Type II, Firm, White with Blue Stripes, 36″ x 75″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Lions Volunteer Blind Industries, Inc., Morristown, TN Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6545-01-584-1582—Kit, Improved First Aid, Army, OCP Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, KY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-00-NSH-1699—Shirt, Underwear, Lightweight Cold Weather Mock Turtle, Marine Corps, Coyote, X Small Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI Contracting Activity: W40M NORTHEREGION CONTRACT OFC NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-543-7018—Trousers, ECWCS. Level 2, PCU, Army, Brown, M-L 8415-01-542-7642—Trousers, ECWCS. Level 2, PCU, Army, Brown, XS 8415-01-542-8534—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XXL 8415-01-542-8538—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XXXLL 8415-01-542-8540—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XXXL 8415-01-542-8542—Trousers, ECWCS, Insulating Level 2, PCU, Army, Brown, S 8415-01-542-8546—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, L 8415-01-542-8549—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, L-L 8415-01-542-8552—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XL 8415-01-542-8553—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XL-L 8415-01-542-8555—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XXLL 8415-01-542-9612—Trousers, Lightweight Combat, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, MR 8415-01-542-8545—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XXLL 8415-01-542-9576—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, S 8415-01-542-9598—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, M 8415-01-542-9609—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XL-L 8415-01-542-9613—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XXXL 8415-01-542-9615—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XXXLL 8415-01-542-9617—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XXL 8415-01-543-7047—Shirt, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, M-L Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, KY Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8105-01-352-1390—Bag, Contamination 8105-01-352-1391—Bag, Contamination, 12″ x 24″ 8105-01-352-1392—Bag, Contamination, 24″ x 24″ 8105-01-352-1394—Bag, Contamination, 36″ x 60″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Relay Resources, Portland, OR Contracting Activity: Naval Supply Systems Command NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6135-01-275-1363—Battery, Non-Rechargeable, 6.0V, Alkaline, NEDA 1412A Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Eastern Carolina Vocational Center, Inc., Greenville, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6545-00-NIB-0058—Kit, Collection, Specimen, Bag, Transparent 6545-00-NIB-0059—Kit, Collection, Specimen, Bottle, White Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Alphapointe, Kansas City, MO Contracting Activity: U.S. Fleet Forces Command NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-584-0893—Business Card Holder, Rosewood 7520-01-554-5467—Rosewood Deluxe Office Start-Up Kit Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Tarrant County Association for the Blind, Fort Worth, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-451-9188—Pen Set, Ballpoint and Fountain, Executive, Metallic Burgundy, Medium Point 7520-01-451-9192—Pen Set, Ballpoint and Fountain, Executive, Metallic Blue, Medium Point 7510-01-451-9186—Refill, Executive Fountain Pen, Blue Ink 7510-01-451-9191—Refill, Executive Fountain Pen, Black Ink 7520-01-451-2278—Pen, Executive Fountain, Refillable, Blue Barrel, Fine Tip 7520-01-451-2274—Pen, Executive, Twist Retractable, Refillable, Navy Blue, Blue Ink, Fine Point 7520-01-451-2275—Pen, Executive, Twist Retractable, Refillable, Burgundy, Black Ink, Fine Point 7520-01-451-2276—Pen, Executive, Twist Retractable, Refillable, Gun Metal, Blue Ink, Medium Point 7520-01-451-2279—Pen, Executive, Twist Retractable, Refillable, Black, Black Ink, Medium Point Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Services Service Type: Assembly of Backpack Pump Outfit Service Mandatory for: GSA, Southwest Supply Center: 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Expanco, Inc., Fort Worth, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Naval & Marine Corps Reserve Center: 1620 East Saginaw Street, Lansing, MI Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Naval FAC Engineeering CMD Midwest Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Atlanta Naval Air Station: 1000 Halsey Avenue, Marietta, GA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Nobis Enterprises, Inc., Marietta, GA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Naval FAC Engineeering CMD Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15385 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0046] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Consumer Focus Groups AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that the CPSC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a request for extension of approval of a collection of information from persons who may voluntarily participate in consumer focus groups. In the Federal Register of May 3, 2017 (82 FR 20589), the CPSC published a notice announcing the agency's intent to seek an extension of approval of this collection of information. CPSC received no comments in response to that notice. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2010-0046.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charu S. Krishnan, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7221, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Consumer Focus Groups.

    OMB Number: 3041-0136.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Consumers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 650 participants.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 1,950 hours (650 participants × 3 hours).

    General Description of Collection: Section 5(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2054(a), authorizes the Commission to conduct studies and investigations relating to the causes and prevention of deaths, accidents, injuries, illnesses, other health impairments, and economic losses associated with consumer products. Section 5(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2054(b), further provides that the Commission may conduct research, studies and investigations on the safety of consumer products or test consumer products and develop product safety test methods and testing devices.

    To help identify and evaluate product-related incidents, Commission staff invites and obtains direct feedback from consumers on issues related to product safety, such as recall effectiveness, product use, and perceptions regarding safety issues. The information that the CPSC collects from future focus groups will help inform the Commission's identification and evaluation of consumer products and product use, by providing insight and information into consumer perceptions and usage patterns. In some cases, one-on-one interviews may be conducted as a more in-depth extension of a focus group or in place of a traditional focus group. This information may also assist the Commission in its efforts to support voluntary standards activities and help CPSC identify consumer safety issues requiring additional research. In addition, based on the information obtained, CPSC may be able to provide safety information to the public that is easier to read and understood by a wider range of consumers.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15278 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0054] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Procedures for Export of Noncomplying Products AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that the CPSC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information relating to the procedures for the export of noncomplying products (OMB No. 3041-0003). In the Federal Register of May 3, 2017 (84 FR 20590), the CPSC published a notice announcing the agency's intent to seek an extension of approval of this collection of information. CPSC received no comments in response to that notice. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2010-0054.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charu S. Krishnan, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7221, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Procedures for the Export of Noncomplying Products.

    OMB Number: 3041-0003.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Exporters of products that do not comply with Commission requirements.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5 exporters will file approximately 9 notifications.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour per notification.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 45 hours (5 exporters × 9 notifications × 1 hour).

    General Description of Collection: The Commission has procedures that exporters must follow to notify the Commission of the exporter's intent to export products that are banned or fail to comply with an applicable CPSC safety standard, regulation, or statute. Respondents must comply with the requirements in 16 CFR part 1019 and file a statement with the Commission in accordance with these requirements.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15280 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2011-0014] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that the CPSC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information relating to the generic clearance for the collection of qualitative feedback on agency service delivery (OMB No. 3041-0148). In the Federal Register of May 3, 2017 (82 FR 20591), the CPSC published a notice announcing the agency's intent to seek an extension of approval of this collection of information. CPSC received no comments in response to that notice. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2011-0014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charu S. Krishnan, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7221, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Burden Hours

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    OMB Number: 3041-0148.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households, businesses and organizations, state, local, or tribal government.

    Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: Eight activities, including qualitative surveys, focus groups, customer satisfaction surveys, and usability tests.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 1,600.

    Annual responses: 1,600.

    Frequency of Response: Once per request.

    Average Minutes per Response: 45 minutes per response.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,200.

    General Description of Collection: The CPSC will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback obtained through these activities. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, and accuracy of information; courtesy; efficiency of service delivery; and resolution of issues with service delivery. We will use the responses to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service CPSC offers to the public.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15279 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0056] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Extension of Approval of Information Collection; Comment Request—Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) invites comments on a proposed request for extension of approval of a collection of information relating to the Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets (OMB No. 3041-0127). The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than September 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0056, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2010-0056, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact: Charu Krishnan, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7221, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following collection of information:

    Title: Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets.

    OMB Number: 3041-0127.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of bicycle helmets.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 38 manufacturers and importers will maintain test records of an estimated 200 models total annually, including older models and new models. Testing on bicycle helmets must be conducted for each new production lot and the test records must be maintained for 3 years.

    Estimated Time per Response: 200 hours/model to test 40 new models (including new prototypes) and an estimated 100 hours/model to test new production lots of 160 older models. Additionally, manufacturers and importers may require 4 hours annually per model for recordkeeping for approximately 200 models.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 24,800 hours (24,000 hours for testing and 800 hours for recordkeeping).

    General Description of Collection: In 1998, the Commission issued a safety standard for bicycle helmets (16 CFR part 1203). The standard includes requirements for labeling and instructions. The standard also requires that manufacturers and importers of bicycle helmets subject to the standard issue certificates of compliance based on a reasonable testing program. Every person issuing certificates of compliance must maintain certain records. Respondents must comply with the requirements in 16 CFR part 1203 for labeling and instructions, testing, certification, and recordkeeping.

    Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    • Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;

    • Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;

    • Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and

    • Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15277 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0053] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that the CPSC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters (OMB No. 3041-0130). In the Federal Register of May 3, 2017 (82 FR 20591), the CPSC published a notice to announce the agency's intent to seek an extension of approval of this collection of information. CPSC received no comments in response to that notice. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2010-0053.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charu S. Krishnan, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7221, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters.

    OMB Number: 3041-0130.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of multi-purpose lighters.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 61 firms will test on average 2 models per firm.

    Estimated Time per Response: 50 hours/model.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 6,100 hours (61 firms × 2 models × 50 hours).

    General Description of Collection: The Commission issued a safety standard for multi-purpose lighters (16 CFR part 1212) in 1999. The standard includes requirements that manufacturers (including importers) of multi-purpose lighters issue certificates of compliance based on a reasonable testing program. The standard also requires that manufacturers and importers maintain certain records. Respondents must comply with these testing, certification, and recordkeeping requirements for multi-purpose lighters.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15281 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID USA-2015-0028] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 21, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Customer Service Survey, ENG Form 5065, OMB Control Number 0710-0012.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement with change.

    Number of Respondents: 2,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 2,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 333 hours.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary for the Corps to conduct surveys of customers served by our district offices, currently a total of 38 offices. Only voluntary opinions will be solicited and no information requested on the survey instrument will be mandatory. The survey form will be provided to the applicants when they receive a regulatory product, primarily a permit decision or wetland determination. The information collected will be used to assess whether Regulatory business practices or policies warrant revision to better serve the public. Without this survey the Corps would have to rely on less structured, informal methods of obtaining public input. The data collection instrument was minimized for respondent burden, while maximizing data quality. The following strategies were used to achieve these goals: 1. Questions are clearly written, 2. The questionnaire is of reasonable length, 3. The questionnaire includes only items that have been shown to be successful in previous analyses and ease in navigation.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; State, local, or tribal government.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Vlad Dorjets.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Mr. Vlad Dorjets, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: July 18, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15341 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-77] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-77 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN21JY17.003 Transmittal No. 16-77 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million Other $750 million Total $750 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None

    Non-MDE includes:

    Continuation of a blanket order training program inside and outside of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that includes, but is not limited to, flight training, technical training, professional military education, specialized training, mobile training teams (MTTs), and English language training. These blanket order training cases will cover all relevant types of training offered by or contracted through the U.S. Air Force or Department of Defense Agencies (DOD), to include participation in CONUS DOD-sponsored education, as well as MTTs that will travel to Saudi Arabia. This training for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) and other Saudi forces will include such subjects as civilian casualty avoidance, the law of armed conflict, human rights command and control, and targeting via MTTs and/or broader Programs of Instruction (POIs). Program management, trainers, simulators, travel, billeting, and medical support may also be included.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS Case NFS—$44M FMS Case NFU—$82M FMS Case THB—$93M FMS Case THE—$69M FMS Case THG—$93M FMS Case NFT—$48M FMS Case TGP—$53M FMS Case THD—$73M FMS Case THF—$39M

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: June 2, 2017

    *As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    Policy Justification Saudi Arabia—Blanket Order Training

    The Government of Saudi Arabia requested a possible sale of continued blanket order training program inside and outside of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that includes, but is not limited to, flight training, technical training, professional military education, specialized training, mobile training teams (MTTs), and English language training. These blanket order training cases cover all relevant types of training offered by or contracted through the U.S. Air Force or Department of Defense (DoD) Agencies, to include participation in CONUS DOD-sponsored education, as well as MTTs that will travel to Saudi Arabia. This training for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) and other Saudi forces will include such subjects as civilian casualty avoidance, the law of armed conflict, human rights command and control, and targeting via MTTs and/or broader Programs of Instruction (POIs). Program management, trainers, simulators, travel, billeting, and medical support may also be included. The estimated program cost is $750 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of an important partner which has been and continues to be a leading contributor of political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

    This training would support the United States' continued commitment to Saudi Arabia's security and strengthen the U.S.-Saudi Arabia strategic partnership. Assisting the RSAF supports Saudi Arabia in deterring hostile actions and increases U.S.-Saudi Arabia military interoperability. It also helps their ability to work with coalition partners during training, exercises, and operations. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing this training and support.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. All defense articles/services have been approved for release.

    [FR Doc. 2017-15319 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2017-ICCD-0064] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual Report of Children in State Agency and Locally Operated Institutions for Neglected or Delinquent Children AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0064. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-42, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Todd Stephenson, 202-205-1645.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Annual Report of Children in State Agency and Locally Operated Institutions for Neglected or Delinquent Children.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0060.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,812.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,061.

    Abstract: An annual survey is conducted to collect data on (1) the number of children enrolled in educational programs of State-operated institutions for neglected or delinquent (N or D) children, community day programs for N or D children, and adult correctional institutions and (2) the October caseload of N or D children in local institutions. The U.S. Department of Education is required to use these data to calculate allocations under parts A and D of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

    Dated: July 18, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15362 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2017-ICCD-0107] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Annual Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Assurances AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0107. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-42, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Samuel Pierre, 202-245-6488.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Annual Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Assurances.

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0625.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 57.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 9.

    Abstract: Section 509 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (act), and its implementing Federal Regulations at 34 CFR part 381, require the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) grantees to submit an application to the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Commissioner in order to receive assistance under Section 509 of the act. The act requires that the application contain Assurances to which the grantee must comply. Section 509(f) of the act specifies the Assurances. There are 57 PAIR grantees. All 57 grantees are required to be part of the protection and advocacy system in each State established under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 6041 et seq.).

    Dated: July 18, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15363 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0147] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection AGENCY:

    Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0147. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-34, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to the collection activities, please contact Rosa Olmeda, 202-453-5968.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1870-0504.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 17,621.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,521,827.

    Abstract: The collection, use, and reporting of education data is an integral component of the mission of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). EDFacts, an ED initiative to put performance data at the center of ED's policy, management, and budget decision-making processes for all K-12 education programs, has transformed the way in which ED collects and uses data. For school years 2009-10 and 2011-12, the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) was approved by OMB as part of the EDFacts information collection (1875-0240). For school years 2013-14 and 2015-16, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) cleared the CRDC as a separate collection from EDFacts. OCR used the most current EDFacts information collection approved by OMB (1875-0240) as a model for the 2013-14 and 2015-16 CRDC information collections that were approved by OMB (1870-0504). Similarly, the currently proposed revised CRDC information collection for school year 2017-18 is modeled after the most recent OMB-approved EDFacts information collection (1850-0925). For the 2017-18 CRDC, OCR is proposing few changes, and those changes will have the net effect of reducing burden on school districts. As with previous CRDC collections, the purpose of the 2017-18 CRDC is to obtain vital data related to the civil rights laws' requirement that public local educational agencies (LEAs) and elementary and secondary schools provide equal educational opportunity. ED has analyzed the uses of many data elements collected in the 2013-14 and 2015-16 CRDCs and sought advice from experts across ED to refine, improve, and where appropriate, add or remove data elements from the collection. ED also made the CRDC data definitions and metrics consistent with other mandatory collections across ED wherever possible. ED seeks OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act to collect from LEAs, the elementary and secondary education data described in the sections of Attachment A. In addition, ED requests that LEAs and other stakeholders respond to the directed questions found in Attachment A-5.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15293 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Promise Neighborhoods Program AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for the Promise Neighborhoods Program—Grant Competition, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.215N.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: July 21, 2017.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: August 21, 2017.

    Date of Pre-Application Webinars: The Promise Neighborhoods team intends to hold pre-application webinars to provide technical assistance to interested applicants. Detailed information regarding these webinar times will be provided on the Promise Neighborhoods' Web site at https://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/parental-options/promise-neighborhoods-pn/.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 5, 2017.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: November 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adrienne Hawkins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W256, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5638 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description Purpose of Program

    The Promise Neighborhoods program is newly authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods program is to significantly improve the academic and developmental outcomes of children living in the most distressed communities of the United States, including ensuring school readiness, high school graduation, and access to a community-based continuum of high-quality services. The program serves neighborhoods with high concentrations of low-income individuals; multiple signs of distress, which may include high rates of poverty, childhood obesity, academic failure, and juvenile delinquency, adjudication, or incarceration; and schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of the ESEA. All strategies in the continuum of solutions must be accessible to children with disabilities and English learners.

    Background

    The vision of the Promise Neighborhoods program is that all children and youth living in our most distressed communities have access to great schools and strong systems of family and community support that will prepare them to attain an excellent education and successfully transition to postsecondary education and a career.

    A Promise Neighborhood is both a place and a strategy. A place eligible to become a Promise Neighborhood is a geographic area 1 that is distressed, often facing inadequate access to high-quality early learning programs and services, with struggling schools, low high school and college graduation rates, high rates of unemployment, high rates of crime, and indicators of poor health. These conditions contribute to and intensify the negative outcomes associated with children and youth living in poverty.

    1 For the purpose of this notice, the Department uses the terms “geographic area” and “neighborhood” interchangeably.

    A Promise Neighborhood strategy addresses the complex, interconnected issues in the distressed community it serves. Promise Neighborhoods are led by organizations, such as nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, offices of chief elected officials of local governments, or Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations, that work to ensure that all children and youth in the target geographic area have access to services that lead to improved educational and developmental outcomes from cradle-to-career. The organizations ensure that services are based on the best available evidence and employ robust data collection and management systems to learn about the impact of approaches for which there is less evidence; that services are linked and integrated seamlessly; and that services include education programs as well as programs that provide family and community supports. Promise Neighborhoods enable children and youth within targeted distressed communities to participate in the full range of cradle-to-career supports that are necessary for them to realize their potential. The Department of Education's expectation is that over time, a greater proportion of the neighborhood residents receive these supports and that neighborhood indicators (see Table 1) show significant progress. For this reason, each Promise Neighborhood applicant must demonstrate several core features: (1) Significant need in the neighborhood; (2) a strategy to build pipeline services (as defined in this notice) with strong schools at the center; and (3) the organizational and relational capacity to achieve results.

    This year's Promise Neighborhoods competition is different from previous years' competitions in several ways. The Promise Neighborhoods program, under the ESEA as amended by ESSA, requires applicants to propose the use of not less than 50 percent of grant funds in year one, and not less than 25 percent in year two, to support planning activities for the development and implementation of pipeline services. Because applicants must now propose to use grant funds for limited planning activities, the Department will no longer award separate Promise Neighborhoods planning and implementation grants. The priorities and some program requirements for this year's competition have also changed from previous competitions. In this year's competition, we introduce new data and performance management requirements while continuing to prioritize evidence-based (see section 8101(21) of the ESEA) activities and programs. Previously funded Promise Neighborhoods grantees have struggled to conduct meaningful data collection and evaluation activities, which include collecting the full range of data necessary to effectively employ comprehensive case and longitudinal data management systems. Such data systems are critical to effectively coordinate a range of services for high-need students and their families within a Promise Neighborhood. In response to this challenge, we now require applicants to address specific data collection and performance management requirements.

    In addressing these requirements, we strongly encourage applicants to review a publication released by the Department in 2013 entitled, “Measuring Performance: A Guidance Document for Promise Neighborhoods on Collecting Data and Reporting Results.” 2 This publication provides guidance on Promise Neighborhoods case management and longitudinal data systems; data collection strategies, sources, and methods; and data tracking and reporting procedures.

    2https://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/pndataguidance.pdf.

    Priorities: This competition includes three absolute priorities and four competitive preference priorities. The three absolute priorities focus on the types of neighborhoods or geographic areas that the proposed project will serve. Absolute Priority 1 is focused on non-rural and non-Tribal applicants; Absolute Priority 2 is focused on rural communities; and Absolute Priority 3 is focused on Tribal communities.

    Absolute Priorities: We are establishing Absolute Priorities 1, 2, and 3 for the FY 2017 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA). Applicants should indicate in their application whether they are applying under Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, or Absolute Priority 3. If an applicant applies under Absolute Priority 2 or Absolute Priority 3 and is deemed ineligible, the application still may be considered for funding under Absolute Priority 1. The Secretary prepares a rank order of applications for each absolute priority based solely on the evaluation of their quality according to the selection criteria.

    Each of the three absolute priorities constitutes its own funding category. Assuming that applications in each funding category are of sufficient quality, the Secretary intends to award grants under each absolute priority.

    Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one or more of these priorities.

    These priorities are:

    Absolute Priority 1—Promise Neighborhoods in Non-Rural and Non-Tribal Communities. 3

    3 An applicant that serves one or more non-rural or non-Tribal communities will not be disqualified because it also proposes to serve rural or Tribal communities.

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to implement a Promise Neighborhood strategy that serves one or more non-rural or non-Tribal communities.

    Absolute Priority 2—Promise Neighborhoods in Rural Communities.

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to implement a Promise Neighborhood strategy that serves one or more rural communities (as defined in this notice) only.

    Under section 4623 of the ESEA, the Department will use at least 15 percent of the funds available for the Promise Neighborhoods program to award grants to eligible entities (as defined in this notice) that propose to carry out the Promise Neighborhoods activities in rural areas. The Department will reduce the funds reserved for rural areas if we do not receive enough applications of sufficient quality.

    Absolute Priority 3—Promise Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities.

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to implement a Promise Neighborhood strategy that serves one or more Indian Tribes (as defined in this notice).

    Competitive Preference Priorities: We are establishing Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 for the FY 2017 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Competitive Preference Priority 3 is from section 4624 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 20 U.S.C. 7231e. Competitive Preference Priority 4 is from the Promise Zones notice of final priority published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035) (Promise Zones NFP).

    For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional three points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 1; we award three additional points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2; we award one additional point to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 3; and we award one additional point to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 4.

    Applicants may address all of the competitive preference priorities. Also, applicants should identify on the abstract form and in the project narrative section of their application which competitive preference priority or priorities the applicants address. We will not award competitive preference priority points to an application that fails to clearly identify the competitive preference priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning the competitive preference priority points.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1—Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation (BCJI) Program (0 or 3 points).

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to serve geographic areas that were the subject of a targeted strategy addressing crime in a specific community pursuant to a BCJI grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice during FY 2012 or later years. To be eligible under this priority, the applicant must either: (1) Be able to demonstrate that it has received a BCJI grant; or (2) provide, in its application, a memorandum of understanding between it and a partner that is a recipient of a BCJI grant. The memorandum of understanding must indicate a commitment on the part of the applicant and partner to coordinate implementation and align resources to the greatest extent practicable.

    Competitive Preference Priority 2—Drug Free Communities (DFC) Support Program (0 or 3 points).

    To receive points under this priority, the applicant must either: (1) Demonstrate that it has received a DFC grant to prevent opioid abuse (as one of its areas of focus); or (2) provide, in its application, a memorandum of understanding between it and a partner that is a recipient of a DFC grant to address opioid abuse prevention as one of its areas of focus.

    Competitive Preference Priority 3—Evidence-Based Activities, Strategies, or Interventions (0 or 1 point).

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to carry out evidence-based activities, strategies, or interventions that, based on information included in their application, are supported by promising evidence (as defined in this notice).

    Competitive Preference Priority 4—Promise Zones (0 or 1 point).

    This priority is for projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.

    To meet this priority, an applicant must include a Certification of Consistency with Promise Zone Goals and Implementation (HUD Form 50153) signed by an authorized representative of the lead organization of a Promise Zone designated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the United States Department of Agriculture. An application for Promise Neighborhoods grant funds that is not accompanied by a signed certification (HUD Form 50153) will receive zero points for this priority. The certification form is available at //portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HUD_Form_50153.pdf. To view the list of designated Promise Zones and lead organizations please go to www.hud.gov/promisezones.

    Definitions

    The definition of “strong theory” is from 34 CFR 77.1. The remaining definitions are established in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

    The following definitions apply to this program:

    Eligible entity means an organization that:

    (1) Is representative of the geographic area (as defined in this notice) proposed to be served;

    (2) Operates or proposes to work with and involve in carrying out its proposed project, in coordination with the school's local educational agency (LEA), at least one public elementary or secondary school that is located within the identified geographic area that the grant will serve;

    (3) Is one of the following:

    (a) An institution of higher education, as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1002);

    (b) An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304); or

    (c) One or more nonprofit entities working in formal partnership with not less than one of the following entities:

    i. A high-need LEA.

    ii. An institution of higher education, as defined in section 102 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1002).

    iii. The office of a chief elected official of a unit of local government.

    iv. An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304); and

    (4) Currently provides at least one of the solutions from the applicant's proposed pipeline services in the geographic area proposed to be served.

    Experimental study means a study, such as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (as defined in this notice), that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component (as defined in this notice) or a control group that does not. In some circumstances, a finding from a regression discontinuity design study (RDD) (as defined in this notice) or findings from a collection of single-case design studies (SCDs) (as defined in this notice) may be considered equivalent to a finding from an RCT. RCTs, RDDs, and collections of SCDs, depending on design and implementation, can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

    Graduation rate means the four-year or extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1).

    Note:

    This definition is not meant to prevent a grantee from also collecting information about the reasons why students do not graduate from the target high school, e.g., dropping out or moving outside of the school district for non-academic or academic reasons.

    Indian Tribe means an Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)

    Indicators of need means currently available data that describe—

    (1) Education need, which means—

    (a) All or a portion of the neighborhood includes or is within the attendance zone of a low-performing school that is a high school, especially one in which the graduation rate (as defined in this notice) is less than 60 percent or a school that can be characterized as low-performing based on another proxy indicator, such as students' on-time progression from grade to grade; and

    (b) Other indicators, such as significant achievement gaps between subgroups of students (as identified in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the ESEA) within a school or LEA, high teacher and principal turnover, or high student absenteeism; and

    (2) Family and community support need, which means—

    (a) Percentages of children with preventable chronic health conditions (e.g., asthma, poor nutrition, dental problems, obesity) or avoidable developmental delays;

    (b) Immunization rates;

    (c) Rates of crime, including violent crime;

    (d) Student mobility rates;

    (e) Teenage birth rates;

    (f) Percentage of children in single-parent or no-parent families;

    (g) Rates of vacant or substandard homes, including distressed public and assisted housing; or

    (h) Percentage of the residents living at or below the Federal poverty threshold.

    Logic model (also known as a theory of action) means a reasonable conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key components and outcomes.

    Meets What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations is the highest possible rating for a study finding reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). Studies receiving this rating provide the highest degree of confidence that an observed effect was caused by the project component studied. Experimental studies (as defined in this notice) may receive this highest rating. These standards are described in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks, Version 3.0, which can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

    Meets What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations is the second-highest rating for a group design study reviewed by the WWC. Studies receiving this rating provide a reasonable degree of confidence that an observed effect was caused by the project component studied. Both experimental studies (such as randomized controlled trials with high rates of sample attrition) and quasi-experimental design studies (as defined in this notice) may receive this rating if they establish the equivalence of the treatment and comparison groups in key baseline characteristics. These standards are described in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks, Version 3.0, which can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

    Pipeline services means a continuum of coordinated supports, services, and opportunities for children from birth through entry into and success in postsecondary education, and career attainment. Such services shall include, at a minimum, strategies to address through services or programs (including integrated student supports) the following:

    (a) High-quality early childhood education programs.

    (b) High-quality school and out-of-school-time programs and strategies.

    (c) Support for a child's transition to elementary school, from elementary school to middle school, from middle school to high school, and from high school into and through postsecondary education and into the workforce, including any comprehensive readiness assessment determined necessary.

    (d) Family and community engagement and supports, which may include engaging or supporting families at school or at home.

    (e) Activities that support postsecondary and work-force readiness, which may include job training, internship opportunities, and career counseling.

    (f) Community-based support for students who have attended the schools in the area served by the pipeline, or students who are members of the community, facilitating their continued connection to the community and success in postsecondary education and the workforce.

    (g) Social, health, nutrition, and mental health services and supports.

    (h) Juvenile crime prevention and rehabilitation programs.

    Project component means an activity, strategy, or intervention included in a project. Evidence (as this term is used in this notice) may pertain to an individual project component, or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

    Promising evidence means the following conditions are met:

    (a) There is at least one study that is a correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias with a relevant finding (quasi-experimental design studies or experimental studies may also qualify); and

    (b) The relevant finding in the study described in paragraph (a) is of a statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect of the project component on a student outcome or other relevant outcome with no statistically significant and overriding negative (i.e., unfavorable) evidence on that project component from other findings on the intervention reviewed by and reported in the What Works Clearinghouse that Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

    Public officials means elected officials (e.g., council members, aldermen and alderwomen, commissioners, State legislators, Congressional representatives, members of the school board), appointed officials (e.g., members of a planning or zoning commission, or of any other regulatory or advisory board or commission), or individuals who are not necessarily public officials (as defined in this notice), but who have been appointed by a public official to serve on the Promise Neighborhoods governing board or advisory board.

    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation, can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not without reservations).

    Randomized controlled trial (RCT) means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the project component is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

    Regression discontinuity design study (RDD) means a study that assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes. The effectiveness of the project component is estimated for individuals who barely qualify to receive that component. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

    Relevant finding means a finding from a study regarding the relationship between (A) an activity, strategy, or intervention included as a component of the logic model (as defined in this notice) for the proposed project, and (B) a student outcome or other relevant outcome included in the logic model for the proposed project.

    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of a program.

    Representative of the geographic area proposed to be served means that residents of the geographic area proposed to be served have an active role in decision-making and that at least one-third of the eligible entity's (as defined in this notice) governing board or advisory board is made up of—

    (1) Residents who live in the geographic area proposed to be served, which may include residents who are representative of the ethnic and racial composition of the neighborhood's residents and the languages they speak;

    (2) Residents of the city or county in which the neighborhood is located but who live outside the geographic area proposed to be served, and who are low-income (which means earning less than 80 percent of the area's median income as published by HUD);

    (3) Public officials (as defined in this notice) who serve the geographic area proposed to be served (although not more than one-half of the governing board or advisory board may be made up of public officials); or

    (4) Some combination of individuals from the three groups listed in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this definition.

    Rural community means a neighborhood that—

    (1) Is served by an LEA that is currently eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the following Department Web sites. For the SRSA program: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible16/index.htmlFor the RLIS program: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligibility.html; or

    (2) Includes only schools designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43. Applicants may determine school locale codes by referring to the following Department Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/.

    Segmentation analysis means the process of grouping and analyzing data from children and families in the geographic area proposed to be served according to indicators of need (as defined in this notice) or other relevant indicators. The analysis is intended to allow grantees to differentiate and more effectively target interventions based on what they learn about the needs of different populations in the geographic area.

    Single-case design study (SCD) means a study that uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment. According to the WWC Single Case Design Pilot Standards, a collection of these studies, depending on design and implementation (e.g., including a sufficient number of cases and of data points per condition), can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    Student achievement means—

    (1) For tested grades and subjects:

    (a) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate,

    (b) Other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (2) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms and programs.

    (2) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

    Student mobility rate is calculated by dividing the total number of new student entries and withdrawals at a school, from the day after the first official enrollment number is collected through the end of the academic year, by the first official enrollment number of the academic year.

    Note:

    This definition is not meant to limit a grantee from also collecting information about why students enter or withdraw from the school, e.g., transferring to charter schools, moving outside of the school district for non-academic or academic reasons.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, selection criteria, definitions, and other requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements, regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under section 4623-4624 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7273-7274, and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will apply to the FY 2017 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7273-7274.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) Promise Zones NFP.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $30,000,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $4,000,000 to $6,000,000.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $5,000,000.

    Maximum Award: $6,000,000.

    The maximum award amount is $6,000,000 per 12-month budget period. We will not fund an annual budget exceeding $6,000,000 per 12-month budget period.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 5-7.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    Under section 4623 of the ESEA, a grant awarded under this competition will be for a period of not more than five years, and may be extended for an additional period of not more than two years. In addition, continued funding of a grant under this competition, including an extended grant, after the third year of the initial grant period will be contingent on the eligible entity's progress toward meeting the performance metrics and annual performance objectives and outcomes under section 4625(a)(4)(C) of the ESEA.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Under section 4623 of the ESEA, an eligible organization must:

    (1) Be representative of the geographic area proposed to be served;

    (2) Operate or propose to work with and involve in carrying out its proposed project, in coordination with the school's LEA, at least one public elementary or secondary school that is located within the identified geographic area that the grant will serve;

    (3) Be one of the following:

    (a) An institution of higher education, as defined in section 102 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1002);

    (b) An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304); or

    (c) One or more nonprofit entities working in formal partnership with not less than one of the following entities:

    i. A high-need LEA.

    ii. An institution of higher education, as defined in section 102 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1002).

    iii. The office of a chief elected official of a unit of local government.

    iv. An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304); and

    (4) Currently provide at least one of the solutions from the applicant's proposed pipeline services in the geographic area proposed to be served.

    2. Cost-Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for a grant under this competition, an applicant must demonstrate a commitment from one or more entities in the public or private sector, which may include Federal, State, and local public agencies, philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or individuals, to provide matching funds. An applicant proposing a project that meets Absolute Priority 1—Promise Neighborhoods in Non-rural and Non-Tribal Communities must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 100 percent of its grant award. An applicant proposing a project that meets Absolute Priority 2—Promise Neighborhoods in Rural Communities or Absolute Priority 3—Promise Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 50 percent of its grant award.

    Eligible sources of matching funds include sources of funds used to pay for solutions within the pipeline services, initiatives supported by the LEA, or public health services for children in the neighborhood. At least 10 percent of an applicant's total match must be cash or in-kind contributions from the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or individuals.

    Applicants must demonstrate a commitment of matching funds in the application. Applicants must specify the source of the funds or contributions and in the case of a third-party in-kind contribution, a description of how the value was determined for the donated or contributed goods or service. Applicants must demonstrate the match commitment by including letters in their applications explaining the type and quantity of the match commitment with original signatures from the executives of organizations or agencies providing the match.

    The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement in the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. An applicant that is unable to meet the matching requirement must include in its application a request to the Secretary to reduce the matching requirement, including the amount of the requested reduction, the total remaining match contribution, and a statement of the basis for the request. The Secretary will grant this request only if an applicant demonstrates a significant financial hardship. An applicant should review the Department's cost-sharing and cost-matching regulations, which include specific limitations, in 2 CFR 200.306 and the cost principles regarding donations, capital assets, depreciations and allowable costs, set out in subpart E of 2 CFR part 200.

    3. Application Requirements: Each applicant that receives a grant award for the Promise Neighborhoods competition must use the grant funds to implement the pipeline services and continuously evaluate the success of the program and improve the program based on data and outcomes. Applicants may use not less than 50 percent of grant funds in year one, and not less than 25 percent of grant funds in year two for planning activities to develop and implement pipeline services.

    Under section 4624 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, applicants must submit and address the following:

    (1) A plan to significantly improve the academic outcomes of children living in the geographically defined area (neighborhood) that is served by the eligible entity by providing pipeline services that address the needs of children in the neighborhood, as identified by the needs analysis; and that is supported by effective practices.

    (2) A description of the neighborhood the eligible entity will serve. Applicants may propose to serve multiple, non-contiguous geographically defined areas. In cases where target areas are non-contiguous, the applicant must explain its rationale for including non-contiguous areas.

    (3) An analysis of the needs and assets of the neighborhood, including:

    (a) The size and scope of the population affected;

    (b) A description of the process through which the needs analysis was produced, including a description of how parents, families, and community members were engaged in such analysis;

    (c) An analysis of community assets and collaborative efforts (including programs already provided from Federal and non-Federal sources) within, or accessible to, the neighborhood, including, at a minimum, early learning opportunities, family and student supports, local businesses, local educational agencies, and institutions of higher education;

    (d) The steps that the eligible entity is taking at the time of the application to address the needs identified in the needs analysis; and

    (e) Any barriers the eligible entity, public agencies, and other community-based organizations have faced in meeting such needs.

    (4) A description of all information the entity used to identify the pipeline services to be provided, which shall not include information that is more than 3 years old. This description should address how the eligible entity plans to collect data on children served by each pipeline service; and increase the percentage of children served over time.

    (5) A description of the process used to develop the Promise Neighborhoods application, including the involvement of family and community members.

    (6) A description of how the pipeline services will facilitate the coordination of the following activities:

    (a) Providing early learning opportunities for children, including by:

    (i) Providing opportunities for families to acquire the skills to promote early learning and child development; and

    (ii) Ensuring appropriate diagnostic assessments and referrals for children with disabilities and children aged 3 through 9 experiencing developmental delays, consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), where applicable.

    (b) Supporting, enhancing, operating, or expanding rigorous, comprehensive, effective educational improvements, which may include high-quality academic programs, expanded learning time, and programs and activities to prepare students for postsecondary education admissions and success.

    (c) Supporting partnerships between schools and other community resources with an integrated focus on academics and other social, health, and familial supports.

    (d) Providing social, health, nutrition, and mental health services and supports, for children, family members, and community members, which may include services provided within the school building.

    (e) Supporting evidence-based programs (see section 8101(21) of the ESEA) that assist students through school transitions, which may include expanding access to postsecondary education courses and postsecondary education enrollment aid or guidance, and other supports for at-risk youth.

    (7) A description of the strategies that will be used to provide pipeline services (including a description of which programs and services will be provided to children, family members, community members, and children within the neighborhood) to support the purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods program.

    (8) An explanation of the process the eligible entity will use to establish and maintain family and community engagement, including:

    (a) Involving representative participation by the members of such neighborhood in the planning and implementation of the activities of each grant awarded;

    (b) The provision of strategies and practices to assist family and community members in actively supporting student achievement and child development;

    (c) Providing services for students, families, and communities within the school building; and

    (d) Collaboration with institutions of higher education, workforce development centers, and employers to align expectations and programming with postsecondary education and workforce readiness.

    (9) An explanation of how the eligible entity will continuously evaluate and improve the continuum of high-quality pipeline services to provide for continuous program improvement and potential expansion.

    (10) A commitment to collecting the required Promise Neighborhoods performance indicators' data; establishing the conditions for effective case and data management; and using data to improve program outcomes. In understanding the conditions necessary to collect, manage, and utilize data for Promise Neighborhoods, an applicant is required to:

    (a) Hire dedicated staff to ensure its project has sufficient personnel and/or contractors to effectively manage its data collection activities, case management, and data systems;

    (b) Submit a detailed data collection and reporting plan that includes a description of how it will conduct a bi-annual neighborhood survey of children and adults in the Promise Neighborhood; collect, at least annually, data on the performance indicators in Table 1; establish clear, annual targets and goals for growth on the performance indicators; and report those data to the Department annually;

    Table 1—Promise Neighborhoods Performance Indicators Result Indicator Source 1. Children enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school 1. Number and percentage of children in kindergarten who demonstrate at the beginning of the program or school year age-appropriate functioning across multiple domains of early learning as determined using developmentally-appropriate early learning measures Administrative data from LEA. 2. Students are proficient in core academic subjects 2.1 Number and percentage of students at or above grade level according to State mathematics assessments in at least the grades required by the ESEA (3rd through 8th grades and once in high school)
  • 2.2 Number and percentage of students at or above grade level according to State English language arts assessments in at least the grades required by the ESEA
  • 3. Students successfully transition from middle school grades to high school 3.1 Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th grade as defined by average daily attendance
  • 3.2 Chronic absenteeism rate of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th grades
  • 4. Youth graduate from high school 4. Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 5. High school graduates obtain a postsecondary degree, certification or credential 5.1 Number and percentage of Promise Neighborhood students who enroll in a two-year or four-year college or university after graduation
  • 5.2 Number and percent of Promise Neighborhood students who graduate from a two-year or four-year college or university or vocational certification completion
  • Third party data such as the National Student Clearinghouse.
    6. Students are healthy Number and percentage of children who consume five or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily Neighborhood survey, school climate survey or other reliable data source for population level data collection. 7. Students feel safe at school and in their community 7. Number and percentage of children who feel safe at school and traveling to and from school as measured by a school climate survey 8. Students live in stable communities 8. Student mobility rate (as defined in the notice) 9. Families and community members support learning in promise Neighborhood Schools 9.1 Number and percentage of parents or family members that read to or encourage their children to read three or more times a week or reported their child read to themselves three or more times a week (birth-8th grade)
  • 9.2 Number and percentage of parents/family members who report talking about the importance of college and career (9th-12th grade)
  • 10. Students have access to 21st century learning tools 10. Number and percentage of students who have school and home access to broadband internet and a connected computing device
    Note:

    The indicators in Table 1 are not intended to limit an applicant from collecting and using data from additional Family and Community Support indicators proposed to the Department. Applicants are strongly encouraged, but not required, to propose additional performance indicators aligned to the specific pipeline services proposed in their application.

    (c) Describe how it will develop a case management system to track key information and progress toward outcomes for individual children and adults participating in its Promise Neighborhoods programs and to facilitate communication and the coordination of services on behalf of these individuals; and

    (d) Describe how it will develop and maintain a longitudinal data system to track outcome measures and other performance indicators over time (e.g., snapshots and extracts from the case management system at different points in time).

    The established performance indicators for the Promise Neighborhoods program serve as indicators of improved academic and developmental outcomes for children, including indicators of school readiness, high school graduation, postsecondary education and career readiness, and other academic and developmental outcomes. Each grantee is required to collect and report data on the performance indicators annually. Subsequently, the Department will make a determination for continuation funding and grant extensions based on performance indicator outcomes and available funding.

    (11) A commitment to work with the Department, and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods or another entity designated by the Department, to ensure that data collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct a rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program and of specific solutions and strategies pursued by individual grantees. This commitment must include, but need not be limited to—

    (a) Ensuring that, through memoranda of understanding with appropriate entities, the national evaluator and the Department have—consistent with applicable privacy requirements—access to relevant program and project data sources (e.g., administrative data and program and project indicator data), including on a quarterly basis if requested by the Department;

    (b) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, an evaluation strategy, including identifying a credible comparison group; and

    (c) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a plan for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data for both program participants and a designated comparison group of non-participants.

    (12) Each applicant must submit, as part of its application, a preliminary memorandum of understanding, signed by each organization or agency with which it would partner in implementing the proposed Promise Neighborhood. Within the preliminary memorandum of understanding, all applicants must detail each partner's financial, programmatic, and long-term commitment with respect to the strategies described in the application.

    Under section 4624(c) of the ESEA, applicants that are non-profit entities must submit a preliminary memorandum of understanding signed by each partner entity or agency, which must include at least one of the following: A high-need LEA; an institution of higher education, as defined in section 102 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1002); the office of a chief elected official of a unit of local government; or an Indian Tribe or Tribal organization as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).

    Each eligible entity that receives a grant under this program is required to prepare and submit an annual report to the Secretary that must include the following: (1) Information about the number and percentage of children in the neighborhood who are served by the grant program, including a description of the number and percentage of children accessing each support service offered as part of the pipeline of services; and (2) information relating to the metrics established under the Promise Neighborhood Performance Indicators.

    In addition, grantees are required to make these data publicly available, including through electronic means. To the extent practicable, and as required by law, such information must be provided in a form and language accessible to parents and families in the neighborhood served under the Promise Neighborhoods grant. In addition, data on academic indicators pertinent to the Promise Neighborhoods program will, in most cases, already be part of statewide longitudinal data systems.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call FRS, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.215N.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VII of this notice.

    2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    The Department will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if it has a better understanding of the number of entities that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify the Department of the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding by completing a web-based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the applicant organization's name and address, and (2) information on the competitive preference priority or priorities under which the applicant intends to apply. Applicants may access this form online at https://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/parental-options/promise-neighborhoods-pn/. Applicants that do not complete this form may still apply for funding.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to 75 pages, and (2) use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

    2. b. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Promise Neighborhoods program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

    Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: July 21, 2017.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: August 21, 2017.

    Date of Pre-Application Webinar: Promise Neighborhoods intends to hold pre-application webinars to provide technical assistance to interested applicants. Detailed information regarding pre-application webinar times will be provided on the Web site at https://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/parental-options/promise-neighborhoods-pn/.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 5, 2017.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: November 3, 2017.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    Applicants that operate a school in a neighborhood served by a grant program must provide such school with the operational flexibility, including autonomy over staff, time, and budget, needed to effectively carry out the activities described in this Notice.

    Grantees cannot, in carrying out activities to improve early childhood education programs, use Promise Neighborhoods funds to carry out the following activities:

    (1) Assessments that provide rewards or sanctions for individual children or teachers.

    (2) A single assessment that is used as the primary or sole method for assessing program effectiveness.

    (3) Evaluation of children, other than for the purposes of improving instruction, classroom environment, professional development, or parent and family engagement, or program improvement.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under Promise Neighborhoods, CFDA number 84.215N, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the Promise Neighborhoods program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.215, not 84.215N).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, flattened Portable Document Format (PDF), meaning any fillable PDF documents must be saved as flattened non-fillable files. Therefore, do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, flattened PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the application narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. There is no need to password protect a file in order to meet the requirement to submit a read-only flattened PDF. And, as noted above, the Department will not review password protected files.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, flattened PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Adrienne Hawkins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W256, Washington, DC 20202-5970. FAX: (202) 205-5630.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.215N), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.215N), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria are either from 34 CFR 75.210 or established in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). All of the selection criteria are listed in this section and in the application package. The maximum score for all of the selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is included in parentheses following the title of the specific selection criterion. Each criterion also includes the factors that reviewers will consider in determining the extent to which an applicant meets the criterion.

    Points awarded under these selection criteria are in addition to any points an applicant earns under the competitive preference priorities in this notice. The maximum score that an application may receive under the competitive preference priorities and the selection criteria is 108 points.

    (a) Need for the Project (15 points).

    The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    (1) The magnitude or severity of the problems to be addressed by the proposed project as described by indicators of need (as defined in this notice) and other relevant indicators identified in part by the needs assessment and segmentation analysis (as defined in this notice);

    (2) The extent to which the geographically defined area has been described; and

    (3) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (34 CFR 75.210)

    (b) Quality of Project Design (30 points).

    The Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality of the project design. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The extent to which the applicant describes a plan to create a complete pipeline of services, including early learning through grade 12, college- and career-readiness, and family and community supports, without time and resource gaps, that will prepare all children in the neighborhood to attain an excellent education and successfully transition to college and a career, and that will significantly increase the proportion of students in the neighborhood that are served by the complete continuum to reach scale over time;

    (2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible (34 CFR 75.210); and

    (3) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice) (34 CFR 75.210).

    (c) Quality of Project Services (20 points).

    The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the project services, the Secretary considers:

    (1) The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (34 CFR 75.210);

    (2) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvement in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards (34 CFR 75.210); and

    (3) The quality of the applicant's plan to establish formal and informal partnerships, including the alignment of the visions, theories of action, and theories of change described in its memorandum of understanding, and to create a system for holding partners accountable for performance in accordance with the memorandum of understanding.

    (d) Quality of the Management Plan (20 points).

    The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (34 CFR 75.210); and

    (2) The adequacy of the management plan's provisions on collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability, including whether the applicant has a plan to build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal data system that integrates student-level data from multiple sources in order to measure progress while abiding by privacy laws and requirements, and ensuring that any systems built, adapted, or expanded upon includes essential security controls.

    (e) Adequacy of Resources (15 points).

    The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    (1) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits (34 CFR 75.210);

    (2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the length of the grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; evidence of broad support from stakeholders (e.g., State educational agencies, teachers' unions) critical to the project's long-term success; or more than one of these types of evidence (34 CFR 75.210); and

    (3) The extent to which the applicant identifies existing neighborhood assets and programs supported by Federal, State, local, and private funds that will be used to implement pipeline services.

    2. Review and Selection Process: The Department will screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice, and will determine which applications have met eligibility and other statutory requirements.

    The Department will use independent reviewers from various backgrounds and professions including: Pre-kindergarten through grade 12, teachers and principals, college and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and others with community development and education expertise. The Department will thoroughly screen all reviewers for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and competitive review process.

    Reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score the applications assigned to their panel, using the selection criteria provided in this notice.

    The Secretary prepares a rank order of applications for each absolute priority based solely on the evaluation of their quality according to the selection criteria and competitive preference priority points. The Department may use more than one tier of reviews in determining grantees, including possible site visits for applicants. Additional information about the review process will be posted on the Department's Web site.

    We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b). If awarded a grant under this competition, information about the number and percentage of children in the neighborhood who are served by the grant program, including a description of the number and percentage of children accessing each support or service offered as part of the pipeline services; and information relating to the performance metrics must be stated in each annual report.

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    5. Performance Measures: The Secretary has established performance indicators (i.e., performance measures) for Promise Neighborhoods. Performance indicators established by the Secretary include improved academic and development outcomes for children, including indicators of school readiness, high school graduation, postsecondary education and career readiness, and other academic and developmental outcomes. These outcomes promote data-driven decision-making and access to a community-based continuum of high quality services for children living in the most distressed communities of the United States, beginning at birth. All grantees will be required to submit data annually against these performance measures as part of their annual performance report.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, the performance of the grantee in meeting the targets established for each performance indicator identified in the grantee's approved data plan.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: July 18, 2017. Margo Anderson, Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15359 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant Program AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for the Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.041C.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: July 21, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 15, 2017.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: November 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amanda Ognibene, Impact Aid Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3C129, Washington, DC 20202-6244. Telephone: 202-260-3858 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant Program provides grants for emergency repairs and modernization of school facilities to certain local educational agencies (LEAs) that receive Impact Aid formula funds.

    Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii) and (iv), this priority is from section 7007(b)(2)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (Act) (20 U.S.C. 7707(b)), and the regulations for this program in 34 CFR 222.177.

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority and otherwise follow the applicable funding provisions in 34 CFR 222.189.

    This priority is:

    Emergency Repair Grants.

    An LEA is eligible to apply for and receive an emergency grant under this priority if it—

    (a) Is eligible to receive formula construction funds for the fiscal year under section 7007(a) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 7707(a));

    (b)(1) Has no practical capacity to issue bonds;

    (2) Has minimal capacity to issue bonds and has used at least 75 percent of its bond limit; or

    (3) Is eligible to receive funds for the fiscal year for heavily impacted districts under section 7003(b)(2) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 7707(b)(2)); and

    (c) Has a school facility emergency that the Secretary has determined, consistent with 34 CFR 222.172(a) and 222.173, poses a health or safety hazard to students and school personnel.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7707(b).

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75 (except for 34 CFR 75.600 through 75.617), 77, 79, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 222.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $17,400,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $60,000-$6,000,000.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $2,175,000.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 8.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months. We will determine each project period based on the nature of the project proposed and the time needed to complete it. We will specify this period in the grant award document.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: An LEA must meet the absolute priority in this notice. An LEA is eligible to receive an emergency grant under the priority if it—

    (a) Is eligible to receive formula construction funds for the fiscal year under section 7007(a) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 7707(a)) because it enrolls a high percentage (at least 50 percent) of federally connected children in average daily attendance (ADA) who either reside on Indian lands or who have a parent on active duty in the U.S. uniformed services.

    (b)(1) Has no practical capacity to issue bonds (as defined in 34 CFR 222.176);

    (2) Has minimal capacity to issue bonds (as defined in 34 CFR 222.176) and has used at least 75 percent of its bond limit; or

    (3) Is eligible to receive funds for the fiscal year for heavily impacted districts under section 7003(b)(2) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2)); and

    (c) Has a school facility emergency that the Secretary has determined, consistent with 34 CFR 222.172(a) and 222.173, poses a health or safety hazard to students and school personnel.

    2.a. Cost Sharing or Matching: In reviewing proposed awards, the Secretary considers the funds available to the grantee from other sources, including local, State, and other Federal funds. See 20 U.S.C. 7707(b)(5)(A)(iii) and 34 CFR 222.174 and 222.191 through 222.193. Consistent with 34 CFR 222.192, an applicant will be required to submit the applicant's most recently available audited financial reports for three consecutive fiscal years, showing closing balances for all school funds. If significant balances (as detailed in 34 CFR 222.192) are available at the close of the applicant's FY 2016, or its most recently audited year, that are not obligated for other purposes, those funds will be considered available for the proposed emergency repair project. Available balances may reduce the amount of funds that may be awarded or eliminate the applicant's eligibility for an emergency grant award under this competition.

    b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This competition involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. As outlined in 34 CFR 222.174, grant funds under this competition may not be used to supplant or replace other available non-Federal construction money.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an electronic application via the internet at: www.G5.gov. For assistance, please contact Amanda Ognibene, Impact Aid Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3C129, Washington, DC 20202-6244. Telephone: (202) 260-3858, FAX: (866) 799-1273, or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content and form of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: July 21, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 15, 2017.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using G5, the Department's grant management system, accessible through the Department's G5 site. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: November 15, 2017.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: Except for applicants with no practical capacity to issue bonds, as defined in 34 CFR 222.176, an eligible applicant's award amount may not be more than 50 percent of the total cost of an approved project and the total amount of grant funds may not exceed $4 million during any four-year period. See 34 CFR 222.193. For example, an LEA that is awarded $4 million in the first year may not receive any additional funds for the following three years. Applicants may submit only one application for one educational facility as provided by 34 CFR 222.183. If an applicant submits more than one application, the Department will consider only the first submission, as determined by the G5 e-application system. Grant recipients must, in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws, use emergency grants for permissible construction activities at public elementary and secondary school facilities. The scope of the project for a selected facility will be identified as part of the final grant award conditions. A grantee must also ensure that its construction expenditures under this program meet the requirements of 34 CFR 222.172 (allowable program activities) and 34 CFR 222.173 (prohibited activities).

    We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant Program, CFDA number 84.041C, must be submitted electronically using the G5 system, accessible through the Department's G5 site at: www.G5.gov. While completing your electronic application, you will be entering data online that will be saved into a database. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    Please note the following:

    • You must complete the electronic submission of your grant application by midnight, Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. G5 will not accept an application for this competition after 11:59:59 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process.

    • The hours of operation of the G5 Web site are 6:00 a.m. Monday until 9:00 p.m. Wednesday; and 6:00 a.m. Thursday until 3:00 p.m. Sunday, Washington, DC time. Please note that, because of maintenance, the system is unavailable between 3:00 p.m. on Sundays and 6:00 a.m. on Mondays, and between 9:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington, DC time. Any modifications to these hours are posted on the G5 Web site.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Discretionary Construction Program under Section 7007(b) and all necessary signature pages.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, flattened Portable Document Format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, flattened PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the application narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF.

    • Prior to submitting your electronic application, you may wish to print a copy of it for your records.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgment that will include a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    • By the application deadline date, you must fax or email to the Impact Aid Program a signed copy of the cover page and the independent emergency certification form for the Application for Discretionary Construction Program under Section 7007(b) after following these steps:

    (1) Print a copy of the application from G5 for your records.

    (2) The applicant's Authorizing Representative must sign and date the cover page. The local certifying official must sign the certification for an emergency application. These forms must be submitted by the application deadline in order to be considered for funding under this program.

    (3) Place the PR/Award number in the upper, right-hand corner of the hard-copy signed cover page of the application.

    (4) Fax or email the signed cover page and independent emergency certification to the Impact Aid Program at 1-866-799-1273 or by email to [email protected] These forms must be submitted before midnight, Washington, DC time, of the application deadline in order to be considered for funding under this program.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on other forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of G5 System Unavailability: If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because the G5 system is unavailable, we will grant you an extension until midnight, Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically, by mail, or by hand delivery. We will grant this extension if—

    (1) You are a registered user of the G5 system and you have initiated an electronic application for this competition; and

    (2) (a) G5 is unavailable for 60 minutes or more between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date; or

    (b) G5 is unavailable for any period of time between 11:00 p.m. and midnight, Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability before granting you an extension. To request this extension or to confirm our acknowledgment of any system unavailability, you may contact either (1) the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or (2) the G5 help desk at 1-888-336-8930. If G5 is unavailable due to technical problems with the system and, therefore, the application deadline is extended, an email will be sent to all registered users who have initiated a G5 application. Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the unavailability of the G5 system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the G5 system because—

    • You do not have access to the internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to G5;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Amanda Ognibene, Impact Aid Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3C129, Washington, DC 20202-6244. Telephone: 202-260-3858. FAX: 1-866-799-1273.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Impact Aid Program, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.041C), Room 3C129, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-6244.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Impact Aid Program, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.041C), Room 3C129, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-6244.

    The Impact Aid Program accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope—if not provided by the Department—the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Impact Aid Program will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this grant notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Impact Aid Program at (202) 260-3858.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: Consistent with 34 CFR 75.209, the selection criteria for this competition are from the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions as indicated after each criterion. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses. Within each criterion, the Secretary evaluates each factor equally, unless otherwise specified. The maximum score that an application may receive is 100 points.

    (a) Severity of the school facility problem to be addressed by the proposed project (34 CFR 222.189(a)(1)) (Maximum 30 points).

    (i) Justification that the proposed emergency project will address a deficiency that poses a health or safety hazard to occupants of the facility, and consistency of the emergency description and the proposed project with the certifying local official's statement (34 CFR 222.185(a) and (c)) (15 points).

    (ii) Impact of the emergency condition on the health and safety of the building occupants and how free public education program delivery in the instructional school facility is adversely affected (34 CFR 222.172, 222.173, 222.176, and 222.185(b)). Applicants should describe: The systems or areas of the facility involved (e.g., HVAC, roof, floor, windows; the type of space affected, such as instructional, resource, food service, recreational, general support, or other areas); the percentage of building occupants affected by the emergency; and the importance of the facility or affected area to the instructional program (15 points).

    (b) Project urgency (Maximum 28 points).

    (i) Risk to occupants if the facility condition is not addressed (34 CFR 222.176, definition of “emergency”). Applicants should describe: Projected increased future costs; the anticipated effect of the proposed project on the useful life of the facility or the need for major construction; and the age and condition of the facility and date of last renovation of affected areas.

    (ii) The justification for rebuilding, if proposed (34 CFR 222.172(c)).

    (c) Effects of Federal presence (section 7007(b)(4)(B) and (C) and 34 CFR 222.184(b)) (Maximum 30 points).

    (i) Amount of non-taxable Federal property in the applicant LEA (percentage of Federal property divided by 10) (10 points).

    (ii) The number of federally connected children identified in section 7003(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act in the LEA (percentage of identified children in LEA divided by 10) (10 points).

    (iii) The number of federally connected children identified in section 7003(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act in the school facility (percentage of identified children in school facility divided by 10) (10 points).

    (d) Ability to respond or pay (section 7007(b)(4)(A)) (Maximum 12 points).

    (i) The percentage of its bonding capacity used by the LEA. Four points will be distributed based on this percentage such that: Four points will be given to an LEA that has used 75 percent or more of its bonding capacity; three points will be given to an LEA that has used 50 percent to 74 percent of its bonding capacity; two points will be given to an LEA that has used 25 percent to 49 percent of its bonding capacity; and one point will be given to an LEA that has used less than 25 percent of its bond limit. LEAs that do not have limits on bonded indebtedness established by their States will be evaluated by assuming that their bond limit is 10 percent of the assessed value of real property in the LEA. LEAs deemed to have no practical capacity to issue bonds will receive all four points (4 points).

    (ii) Assessed value of real property per student (applicant LEA's total assessed valuation of real property per pupil as a percentile ranking of all LEAs in the State). Points will be distributed by providing all four points to LEAs in the State's poorest quartile and only one point to LEAs in the State's wealthiest quartile (4 points).

    (iii) Total tax rate for capital or school purposes (applicant LEA's tax rate for capital or school purposes as a percentile ranking of all LEAs in the State). If the State authorizes a tax rate for capital expenditures, then these data must be used; otherwise, data on the total tax rate for school purposes are used. Points will be distributed by providing all four points to LEAs in the State's highest-taxing quartile and only one point to LEAs in the State's lowest-taxing quartile (4 points).

    2. Review and Selection Process: (a) We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    (b) Upon receipt, Impact Aid program staff will screen all applications to eliminate any applications that do not meet the eligibility standards, are incomplete, or are late. Applications that do not include a signed cover page and a signed independent emergency certification submitted by fax or email before midnight, Washington, DC time on the application deadline are considered incomplete and will not be considered for funding. Program staff will also calculate the scores for each application under criteria (c) and (d). Panel reviewers will assess the applications under criteria (a) and (b).

    (c) Applications are ranked based on the total number of points received during the review process. Those with the highest scores will be at the top of the funding slate.

    (d) Applicants may submit only one application for one educational facility. If an applicant submits multiple applications, the Department will only consider the first sequentially submitted application, as provided under 34 CFR 222.183.

    3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: The Department has established the following performance measure for this program: An increasing percentage of LEAs receiving Impact Aid Construction funds will report that the overall condition of their school buildings is adequate. Data for this measure will be reported to the Department on Table 10 of the application for Impact Aid Section 7003 Basic Support Payments.

    5. Feasibility Study: For applicants that request funding for new construction and that are selected for funding, the Department will require a feasibility of construction study prior to making an award determination. This independent third-party study must demonstrate that the chosen construction site is viable and the infrastructure will be able to sustain the new facility or addition.

    VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: July 18, 2017. Jason Botel, Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15389 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-2087-000] Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 3, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 14, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15330 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AC17-230-000] AEP Texas Central Company; AEP Texas North Company; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on July 14, 2017, AEP Texas Central Company and AEP Texas North Company filed a request for waiver of requirement to file FERC Form No. 3-Q, as required by 18 CFR 141.400.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 24, 2017.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15333 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board of Directors' Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee (RSC), Regional Entity Trustee (RET), Members' Committee and Board of Directors as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

    The meetings will be held at the Hyatt Regency Denver, 650 15th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. The phone number is (888) 421-1442. All meetings are Mountain Time.

    SPP RET July 24, 2017 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.) SPP RSC July 24, 2017 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.) SPP Members/Board of Directors July 25, 2017 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket No. ER15-2028, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER15-2115, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER15-2324, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL16-91, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL16-110, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-204, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-1286, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-1341, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-1546, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-2522, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-2523, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL17-11, Alabama Power Co. Docket No. EL17-21, Kansas Electric Co. Docket No. EL17-69, Buffalo Dunes Wind Project Docket No. ER17-264, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-426, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-428, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-772, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-889, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1092, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1098, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1110, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1319, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1371, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1379, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1508, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1482, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1575, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1610, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1643, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1694, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1733, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1759, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1795, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1803, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1804, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1806, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1809, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1811, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1813, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1814, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1815, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1897, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1945, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-2027, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-2032, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-2038, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.

    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or [email protected]

    Dated: July 14, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15335 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-124-000.

    Applicants: Lackawanna Energy Center LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Lackawanna Energy Center LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-125-000.

    Applicants: SUNE Beacon Site 5, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of EWG Status of SunE Beacon Site 5 LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-126-000.

    Applicants: Rattlesnake Power, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Rattlesnake Power, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-127-000.

    Applicants: Apple Blossom Wind, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EWG of Apple Blossom Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-067; ER10-2319-057; ER10-2317-057; ER13-1351-039; ER10-2330-064.

    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, BE Alabama LLC, BE CA LLC, Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C., Florida Power Development LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the J.P. Morgan Sellers.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5226.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4505-002.

    Applicants: Backyard Farms Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Backyard Farms Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2086-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Service Agreement No. 1405, Queue No. O11 to Assign to BC Landfill to be effective 11/23/2005.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2087-000.

    Applicants: Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Appliciation to be effective 9/11/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2088-000.

    Applicants: Apple Blossom Wind, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Apple Blossom Wind, LLC Petition for Order Accepting Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/13/17.

    Accession Number: 20170713-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2089-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017 Update to Depreciation Rates to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    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: July 14, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15328 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AC17-227-000] Pike County Light and Power Company; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on July 6, 2017, Pike County Light and Power Company filed a request for waiver of requirement for its Certified Public Accountant (CPA) to file a statement certifying data in its FERC Form 1-F for a calendar year and in lieu thereof to file a CPA certification based on a fiscal year, which runs from September to September.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 27, 2017.

    Dated: July 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15332 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-2088-000] Apple Blossom Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Apple Blossom Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 3, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 14, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15331 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-138-000.

    Applicants: 83WI 8me, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of 83WI 8me, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5229.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-139-000.

    Applicants: Minnesota Wind Holdings, LLC, Jeffers Wind 20, LLC, Community Wind North, LLC, North Community Turbines LLC, North Wind Turbines LLC, Community Wind North 1 LLC, Community Wind North 2 LLC, Community Wind North 3 LLC, Community Wind North 5 LLC, Community Wind North 6 LLC, Community Wind North 7 LLC, Community Wind North 8 LLC, Community Wind North 9 LLC, Community Wind North 10 LLC, Community Wind North 11 LLC, Community Wind North 13 LLC, Community Wind North 15 LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Approval under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Minnesota Wind Holdings, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5235.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2186-000.

    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.

    Description: Response to June 19, 2017 Request for Additional Information of Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2093-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4753—NITSA among PJM and Buckeye Power to be effective 6/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2094-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4754—NITSA among PJM and IMPA to be effective 10/1/2004.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2095-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Executed Transmission Interconnection Agreements to be effective 9/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2096-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 205 BSM rules—forecast determinations, escalation factors & inflation rates to be effective 9/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2097-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-07-14_Dynamic Narrowly Constrained Area (NCA) Filing to be effective 11/11/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2098-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Generation Dispatch and Energy Mgmt Agmt with Gillette, WY to be effective 9/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2099-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Generation Dispatch & Energy Management Agmt with Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. to be effective 9/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5212.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2100-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017 Amended Generation Dispatch and Energy Mgmt Agmt with Gillette, WY to be effective 9/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-41-000.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 7/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170717-5028.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/17.

    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: July 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15334 Filed 7-20-17; 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: ER17-2090-000.

    Applicants: SolUnesco, LLC.

    Description: SolUnesco Request for Waiver.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2091-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule(s) No. 331 and No. 508 of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2092-000.

    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment 1 to Interconnection Agreement between Cleco and LAGEN to be effective 7/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/14/17.

    Accession Number: 20170714-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/17.

    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: July 14, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15329 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341; FRL-9962-92-OAR] Notice of Availability of Two Updated Chapters in the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that two chapters of the current EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (Control Cost Manual) have been updated. The EPA is requesting comment on: Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.1, “Carbon Adsorbers,” and Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.2, “Flares.” These two Control Cost Manual chapters cover control measures for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2017. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on submitting comments on the provided data.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry Sorrels, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C439-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-5041; fax number: (919) 541-0839; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EPA is requesting comment on the specific Control Cost Manual chapters included in this notice.

    I. General Information A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA docket office, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 2.

    2. Tips for Preparing your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: Identify the notification by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language/data for your requested changes.

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

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

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

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

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

    II. Information Available for Public Comment

    The EPA is requesting comment on two updated chapters of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. The Control Cost Manual contains individual chapters on control measures, including data and equations to aid users in estimating capital costs for installation and annual costs for operation and maintenance of these measures. The Control Cost Manual is used by the EPA for estimating the impacts of rulemakings, and serves as a basis for sources to estimate costs of controls that are Best Available Control Technology under the New Source Review Program, and Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze Program and for other programs.

    The two updated Control Cost Manual chapters are: Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.1, Carbon Adsorbers; Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.2, Flares. These two revised Control Cost Manual chapters can be found in the docket for the Control Cost Manual update (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341). The current Control Cost Manual version (sixth edition) is available at http://epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo, and was last updated in 2003. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 requested that the EPA begin development of a seventh edition of the Control Cost Manual. The EPA has met with state, local, and tribal officials to discuss plans for the Control Cost Manual update as called for under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. The EPA has met with other groups as well at their request. The EPA has recently updated the selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) chapters, the first two chapters (Chapter 1, Section 4; Chapter 2, Section 4, respectively) completed for the seventh edition of the Control Cost Manual, and made them available to the public in May 2016 (81 FR 38702, June 14, 2016). In addition, the EPA has submitted updated draft versions of the Refrigerated Condensers (Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.1) and Incinerators (Chapter 2, Section 3, Section 3.2, now Incinerators/Oxidizers) chapters and the Cost Estimation: Concepts and Methodology chapter (Chapter 2, Section 1) as part of a notice released on September 22, 2016 (81 FR 65352). The Agency is currently reviewing comments submitted in response to the NODA, and will finalize these three chapters in the near future.

    To help focus review of the Carbon Adsorbers (Chapter 1, Section 3, and Section 3.1) and Flares (Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.2) chapters, we offer the following list of questions that the EPA is particularly interested in addressing in the updated chapters. Commenters are welcome to address any aspects of these chapters. Please provide supporting data for responses to these questions and for other comments on the chapters.

    For the Carbon Adsorbers chapter:

    (1) What is a reasonable estimate of equipment life (defined as design or operational life) for this control measure?

    (2) Is the description of carbon adsorbers complete, up to date, and accurate, particularly with regard to control of VOC?

    (3) Are the cost correlations, factors, and equations for carbon adsorbers accurate? If not, how should they be revised? Please provide data, if possible, to address inaccuracies.

    (4) Are the estimates of VOC removal or control efficiency for carbon adsorbers accurate? If not, what are more accurate estimates? Please provide data, if possible, to address inaccuracies.

    For the Flares chapter:

    (1) What is a reasonable estimate of equipment life (defined as design or operational life) for this control measure?

    (2) Is the description of flares technology complete, up to date, and accurate?

    (3) Are the cost correlations, factors, and equations for flares accurate? If not, how should they be revised? Please provide data, if possible, to address inaccuracies.

    (4) Are the estimates of flares VOC destruction efficiency accurate? If not, what are more accurate estimates? Please provide data, if possible, to address inaccuracies.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Stephen Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-15344 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9964-82-OAR] EPA's Intent To Disclose Confidential Business Information (CBI) Contained in Vehicle Sales Data for Model Years 2015 to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) for Use in Modeling and Projecting Energy Demand in the Light-Duty Vehicle Sector AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 23, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a written request from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) for historical model year sales data for year 2015 by manufacturer and nameplate. This requested data may contain confidential business information (CBI). The EPA may disclose business information to other Federal agencies that otherwise is not available to the public if certain requirements are met. The EPA intends to share certain information, detailed below, with EIA ten (10) days after publication of this notice. The information requested has been used to model and project energy demand in the light-duty vehicle sector and is critical to EIA's efforts to project energy demand, fuel efficiency, fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions for the transportation sector. EIA has agreed to keep the data confidential and not disclose it further.

    DATES:

    The sales data will be disclosed to EIA on or after July 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Zaremski, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Compliance Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4362; fax number: 734-214- 4053; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved with the production and sale of motor vehicles. Regulated categories include:

    Category NAICS 1 Codes SIC 2 Codes Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry 336111, 336112 3711 Light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck manufacturers. 1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 2