Federal Register Vol. 82, No.158,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 158 (August 17, 2017)

Page Range39007-39333
FR Document

82_FR_158
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 39007 - Addressing China's Laws, Policies, Practices, and Actions Related to Intellectual Property, Innovation, and TechnologyPDF
82 FR 39310 - Medicare Program; Cancellation of Advancing Care Coordination Through Episode Payment and Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Models; Changes to Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model (CMS-5524-P)PDF
82 FR 39113 - Annual Notice of Interest Rates for Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Prior to July 1, 2013PDF
82 FR 39111 - Annual Notice of Variable Interest Rates of Federal Student Loans Made Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program Prior to July 1, 2010PDF
82 FR 39025 - Safety Zone; Willamette River, Lake Oswego, ORPDF
82 FR 39133 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India and Italy; DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 39098 - Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Volatility Standard for Shelby County (Memphis), TennesseePDF
82 FR 39124 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 39124 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 39038 - Community Right-To-Know; Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) ReportingPDF
82 FR 39101 - Community Right-To-Know; Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) ReportingPDF
82 FR 39127 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Chimpanzee Research Use Form (Office of the Director)PDF
82 FR 39134 - Granting of Relief; Federal Firearms PrivilegesPDF
82 FR 39145 - SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging CompaniesPDF
82 FR 39144 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 39143 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 39142 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 39023 - Safety Zone; St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, MIPDF
82 FR 39139 - James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming AmendmentPDF
82 FR 39125 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 39019 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Carquinez Strait, Martinez, CAPDF
82 FR 39130 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 39138 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Foreign Patent LicensePDF
82 FR 39123 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)PDF
82 FR 39151 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)PDF
82 FR 39152 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Renewal of Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)PDF
82 FR 39120 - Piedmont Municipal Power Agency v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of ComplaintPDF
82 FR 39118 - Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 39150 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New HampshirePDF
82 FR 39047 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna FisheriesPDF
82 FR 39019 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FLPDF
82 FR 39020 - Safety Zone; Port Huron Float-Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MIPDF
82 FR 39122 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Plywood and Composite Wood Products National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Risk and Technology Review (RTR)PDF
82 FR 39136 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revisions to a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
82 FR 39137 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revisions to a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
82 FR 39137 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revisions to a currently approved collectionPDF
82 FR 39134 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New CollectionPDF
82 FR 39135 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New CollectionPDF
82 FR 39044 - Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands; Final Annual Subsistence Harvest Levels for 2017-2019PDF
82 FR 39276 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Low-Energy Geophysical Survey in the Northeastern Pacific OceanPDF
82 FR 39132 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 39107 - In the Matter of: Yasser Ahmad Obeid, Inmate Number: 60923-018, FCI Yazoo City Medium, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 5888, Yazoo City, MS 39194PDF
82 FR 39110 - In the Matter of: Jose Luis Benavides-Cira, Inmate Number: 85055-379, Great Plains Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 400, Hinton, OK 73047PDF
82 FR 39109 - In the Matter of: Ricardo Humberto Varela, Inmate Number: 85044-379, Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop, P.O. Box 1010, Bastrop, TX 78602PDF
82 FR 39106 - In the Matter of: Wenxia Man, a/k/a Wency Man, Inmate Number: 50772-298, FCI Dublin, 5701 8th Street-Camp Parks, Dublin, CA 94568PDF
82 FR 39103 - In the Matter of: David L. Maricola, Inmate Number: 96672-038, FCI Fort Dix, P.O. Box 2000, Joint Base MDL, NJ 08640PDF
82 FR 39133 - Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, and Korea; Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 39105 - In the Matter of: Mansour Moghtaderi Zadeh, a/k/a Mansour Zadeh, a/k/a Mita Zarek, a/k/a Mita Zadeh currently incarcerated at: Inmate Number: 43594-013, Rivers Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 630, Winton, NC 27986, and with prior known addresses at: 16 Kyraikou Matsi Ave., 3rd Floor, 1082 Nicosia, Cyprus, and Strovolou 77, Strovolos Center Suite 202, Strovolos P.C. 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus and P.O. Box 23973, 1687 Nicosia, CyprusPDF
82 FR 39104 - In the Matter of: Alexandre Dos Anjos Oliveira, Inmate Number: 05753-104, McRae Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Drawer 55030, McRae Helena, GA 31055; Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
82 FR 39148 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Further Clarify When Nasdaq PSX Will Utilize the Secondary Source of Data Pursuant to Rule 3304PDF
82 FR 39145 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Further Clarify When the Exchange Will Utilize the Secondary Source of Data Pursuant to Rule 4759PDF
82 FR 39155 - Request for Applications for the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government EntitiesPDF
82 FR 39156 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request Relating to CPEO FormsPDF
82 FR 39103 - Foreign-Trade Zone 75-Phoenix, Arizona; Withdrawal of Application for Subzone Expansion; Conair Corporation, Glendale, ArizonaPDF
82 FR 39157 - Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting CancellationPDF
82 FR 39111 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
82 FR 39131 - Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and Taiwan; DeterminationPDF
82 FR 39153 - Pipeline Safety: Meetings of the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 39103 - Opportunity To Comment on the Applicants for the South Carolina Area Consisting of the Entire State of South Carolina, Except Those Export Port Locations Within the State, Which Are Serviced by the South Carolina Department of AgriculturePDF
82 FR 39122 - New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of FilingPDF
82 FR 39122 - Canton Mountain Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 39120 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 39119 - Ohio River System LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 39121 - Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 39118 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 39117 - Village of Waterbury; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 39142 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 39116 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 39090 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
82 FR 39083 - Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Minor Source Permit Program RevisionsPDF
82 FR 39070 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution RulePDF
82 FR 39067 - ABMC Privacy ProgramPDF
82 FR 39065 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Deblois, MEPDF
82 FR 39027 - Air Plan Approval; NC; Air Curtain BurnersPDF
82 FR 39097 - Air Plan Approval; NC; Air Curtain BurnersPDF
82 FR 39035 - Air Plan Approval: Alabama; Transportation ConformityPDF
82 FR 39078 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Transportation ConformityPDF
82 FR 39031 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revisions To Implement the Revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQSPDF
82 FR 39097 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revisions To Implement the Revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQSPDF
82 FR 39030 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2PDF
82 FR 39079 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation PlanPDF
82 FR 39160 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Endangered New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon and the Threatened Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic SturgeonPDF
82 FR 39124 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Specialty Benchmarks PSOPDF
82 FR 39151 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Hizbul Mujahideen, aka Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, aka HM as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
82 FR 39150 - In the Matter of the Designation of Hizbul Mujahideen Also Known as Hizb-ul-Mujahideen Also Known as HM as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as AmendedPDF
82 FR 39018 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 39013 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 39009 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 39011 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 39128 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 39154 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
82 FR 39049 - Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LLPDF
82 FR 39062 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

82 158 Thursday, August 17, 2017 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment from Specialty Benchmarks PSO, 39124-39125 2017-17153 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Granting of Relief; Federal Firearms Privileges, 39134 2017-17410 American American Battle Monuments Commission PROPOSED RULES ABMC Privacy Program, 39067-39070 2017-17281 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39125-39127 2017-17402 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Cancellation of Advancing Care Coordination through Episode Payment and Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Models; Changes to Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model (CMS-5524-P), 39310-39333 2017-17446 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FL, 39019-39020 2017-17387 Carquinez Strait, Martinez, CA, 39019 2017-17400 Safety Zones: Port Huron Float-Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI, 39020-39023 2017-17386 St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, MI, 39023-39025 2017-17404 Willamette River, Lake Oswego, OR, 39025-39026 2017-17422 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Education Department Education Department NOTICES Interest Rates: Federal Student Loans Made under Federal Family Education Loan Program, 39111-39113 2017-17424 Federal Student Loans Made under William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, 39113-39116 2017-17425 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama; Transportation Conformity, 39035-39038 2017-17241 Colorado; Infrastructure Requirements for 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 39030-39031 2017-17232 NC; Air Curtain Burners, 39027-39029 2017-17244 Virginia; Revisions to Implement Revocation of 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 39031-39035 2017-17235 Community Right-to-Know; Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System Codes for Toxics Release Inventory Reporting, 39038-39044 2017-17413 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 39070-39078 2017-17341 Alabama; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 39090-39097 2017-17346 Alabama; Transportation Conformity, 39078-39079 2017-17239 NC; Air Curtain Burners, 39097 2017-17243 South Carolina: Minor Source Permit Program Revisions, 39083-39090 2017-17345 South Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 39079-39083 2017-17222 Virginia; Revisions to Implement Revocation of 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 39097-39098 2017-17234 Community Right-to-Know; Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System Codes for Toxics Release Inventory Reporting, 39101-39102 2017-17412 Relaxation of Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Shelby County (Memphis), TN, 39098-39101 2017-17420 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Plywood and Composite Wood Products National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Risk and Technology Review, 39122-39123 2017-17385 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments, 39009-39013 2017-17005 2017-17008 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments, 39013-39019 2017-17009 2017-17010 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 39062-39065 2017-16560 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Deblois, ME, 39065-39067 2017-17259 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39123-39124 2017-17394 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 39128-39130 2017-16953 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Ohio River System, LLC, 39119-39120 2017-17354 Combined Filings, 39116 2017-17349 Complaints: Piedmont Municipal Power Agency v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 39120 2017-17391 Determinations of Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities: Village of Waterbury, 39117-39118 2017-17351 Filings: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 39122 2017-17357 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Canton Mountain Wind, LLC, 39122 2017-17356 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 39118-39121 2017-17352 2017-17355 Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC, 39118 2017-17390 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 39121-39122 2017-17353 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Commercial Driver's License Standards; Exemption Applications: Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler), 39151-39152 2017-17393 Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler); Renewal, 39152-39153 2017-17392 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LL, 39049-39062 2017-16736 NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 39124 2017-17414 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 39124 2017-17415 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Permit Applications, 39130-39131 2017-17397 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Sanctions Actions, 39154-39155 2017-16912 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Subzone Expansions; Applications: Conair Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 75, Phoenix, AZ, 39103 2017-17363 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Requests for Comments: Applicants for South Carolina Area Consisting of Entire State of South Carolina, Except Those Export Port Locations within the State, which are Serviced by South Carolina Department of Agriculture, 39103 2017-17358 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Export Privileges; Denials: Alexandre Dos Anjos Oliveira, 39104-39105 2017-17368 David L. Maricola, 39103-39104 2017-17371 Jose Luis Benavides-Cira, 39110-39111 2017-17374 Mansour Moghtaderi Zadeh, aka Mansour Zadeh, aka Mita Zarek, aka Mita Zadeh, 39105-39106 2017-17369 Ricardo Humberto Varela, 39109-39110 2017-17373 Wenxia Man, 39106-39107 2017-17372 Yasser Ahmad Obeid, 39107-39108 2017-17375 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certified Professional Employer Organization Forms, 39156-39157 2017-17364 Request for Applications: IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities, 39155-39156 2017-17365 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China, 39111 2017-17361 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, Indonesia, and Korea; Correction, 39133 2017-17370 Complaints: Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same, 39132-39133 2017-17377 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India and Italy, 39133-39134 2017-17421 Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, 39131-39132 2017-17360 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39134-39138 2017-17380 2017-17381 2017-17382 2017-17383 2017-17384
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Intents to Grant Exclusive Foreign Patent Licenses, 39138-39139 2017-17396 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Chimpanzee Research Use Form, 39127-39128 2017-17411 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries, 39047-39048 2017-17388 Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon and Threatened Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Sturgeon, 39160-39274 2017-17207 Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals on Pribilof Islands; Final Annual Subsistence Harvest Levels for 2017-2019, 39044-39047 2017-17379 NOTICES Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Low-Energy Geophysical Survey in Northeastern Pacific Ocean, 39276-39307 2017-17378 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Direct License Transfers; Applications: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant; Conforming Amendment, 39139-39142 2017-17403 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee, 39153-39154 2017-17359 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 39142 2017-17350 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Trade: China's Laws, Policies, Practices, and Actions Related to Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Technology; U.S. Policy to Address, 39007-39008 2017-17528 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39142-39145 2017-17405 2017-17406 2017-17407 2017-17408 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies, 39145 2017-17409 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NASDAQ BX, Inc., 39145-39148 2017-17366 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 39148-39150 2017-17367 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: New Hampshire, 39150 2017-17389 State Department State Department NOTICES Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Hizbul Mujahideen aka Hizb-ul-Mujahideen aka HM, 39150-39151 2017-17024 Designations as Global Terrorists: Hizbul Mujahideen, aka Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, aka HM, 39151 2017-17026 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Cancellation, 39157 2017-17362 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 39160-39274 2017-17207 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 39276-39307 2017-17378 Part IV Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 39310-39333 2017-17446 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.

82 158 Thursday, August 17, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31145; Amdt. No. 3757] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 17, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. 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.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 14, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 17 August 2017 Akiak, AK, Akiak, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-B Akiak, AK, Akiak, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-B Talkeetna, AK, Talkeetna, NDB RWY 1, Amdt 4 Talkeetna, AK, Talkeetna, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1 Talkeetna, AK, Talkeetna, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig Talkeetna, AK, Talkeetna, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Talkeetna, AK, Talkeetna, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 3 Talkeetna, AK, Talkeetna, VOR-A, Amdt 11 Anniston, AL, Anniston Rgnl, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 5, Orig Anniston, AL, Anniston Rgnl, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 5, Amdt 4 Anniston, AL, Anniston Rgnl, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 4C, CANCELED Anniston, AL, Anniston Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 2 Anniston, AL, Anniston Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1 Anniston, AL, Anniston Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23, Amdt 1B, CANCELED Birmingham, AL, Birmingham-Shuttlesworth Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 24, ILS RWY 24 (SA CAT II), Amdt 4 Birmingham, AL, Birmingham-Shuttlesworth Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24, Amdt 4 Birmingham, AL, Birmingham-Shuttlesworth Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 24, Amdt 2 Gadsden, AL, Northeast Alabama Rgnl, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 14 Byron, CA, Byron, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1 Byron, CA, Byron, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Los Angeles, CA, Los Angeles Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 14 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, Amdt 7E Vacaville, CA, Nut Tree, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 20, Orig-A, CANCELED Vacaville, CA, Nut Tree, VOR-A, Amdt 6 Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 17L, ILS RWY 17L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 17L (CAT II), Amdt 3A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, Amdt 38A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, Amdt 2A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, NDB RWY 35L, Amdt 27A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17L, Amdt 3A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17R, Amdt 3A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35L, Amdt 1A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35R, Amdt 4A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17L, Amdt 2A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R, Amdt 1A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35L, Amdt 1A Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35R, Amdt 1A Denver, CO, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12L, Orig Danbury, CT, Danbury Muni, GPS RWY 8, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Danbury, CT, Danbury Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig Danbury, CT, Danbury Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Danbury, CT, Danbury Muni, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 9B, CANCELED Miami, FL, Miami Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 27 Miami, FL, Miami Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30, Amdt 1B Savannah, GA, Savannah/Hilton Head Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, ILS RWY 10 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 10 (SA CAT II), Amdt 28 Muscatine, IA, Muscatine Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Burley, ID, Burley Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 5 Marion, IL, Veterans Airport of Southern Illinois, ILS OR LOC RWY 20, Amdt 12B Marion, IL, Veterans Airport of Southern Illinois, NDB RWY 20, Amdt 10D Marion, IL, Veterans Airport of Southern Illinois, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1C Marion, IL, Veterans Airport of Southern Illinois, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1C Marion, IL, Veterans Airport of Southern Illinois, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Marion, IL, Veterans Airport of Southern Illinois, VOR RWY 2, Amdt 13E Marion, IL, Veterans Airport of Southern Illinois, VOR RWY 20, Amdt 17D Sheridan, IN, Sheridan, VOR-A, Amdt 6A Abilene, KS, Abilene Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B Abilene, KS, Abilene Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1B Abilene, KS, Abilene Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 3A Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 3A Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1B Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 19A Leonardtown, MD, St Mary's County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1 Leonardtown, MD, St Mary's County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1 Aitkin, MN, Aitkin Muni-Steve Kurtz Field, NDB RWY 16, Amdt 5C Aitkin, MN, Aitkin Muni-Steve Kurtz Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1 Aitkin, MN, Aitkin Muni-Steve Kurtz Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1 Pine River, MN, Pine River Rgnl, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 1A St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 12R, Amdt 22B St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30L, Amdt 12B St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 12R, Amdt 1C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30L, Amdt 1C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 12R, Orig-B St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 30L, Orig-B Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, ILS RWY 3 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 3 (CAT II), ILS RWY 3 (CAT III), Amdt 5C Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 16C, CANCELED Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 3B Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21, Orig-C Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 3, Orig-C Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 21, Orig-D Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 10 Kalispell, MT, Glacier Park Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 2, Amdt 3 North Wilkesboro, NC, Wilkes County, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 1, Amdt 1 North Wilkesboro, NC, Wilkes County, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 1, Orig North Wilkesboro, NC, Wilkes County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1 North Wilkesboro, NC, Wilkes County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig North Wilkesboro, NC, Wilkes County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 2B Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, ILS RWY 35 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 35 (CAT II), ILS RWY 35 (CAT III), Amdt 2B Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 17, Amdt 2C Manchester, NH, Manchester, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2B Manchester, NH, Manchester, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1B Manchester, NH, Manchester, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17, Amdt 1B Manchester, NH, Manchester, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35, Amdt 1B Manchester, NH, Manchester, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17, Amdt 1A Manchester, NH, Manchester, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35, Orig-A Las Vegas, NV, Mc Carran Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 1L, Amdt 2 Las Vegas, NV, Mc Carran Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 26L, Amdt 6 Las Vegas, NV, Mc Carran Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 26R, Amdt 19 Las Vegas, NV, Mc Carran Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19L, Amdt 2 Las Vegas, NV, Mc Carran Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R, Amdt 2 Las Vegas, NV, Mc Carran Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Las Vegas, NV, Mc Carran Intl, VOR RWY 26L/R, Amdt 4 New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, ILS RWY 4R (CAT II), ILS RWY 4R (CAT III), Amdt 30 New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 4L, Amdt 3 New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 4R, Amdt 2 New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4L, Amdt 2 New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4R, Amdt 1 Majuro Atoll, RM, Marshall Islands Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-D Majuro Atoll, RM, Marshall Islands Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig-D Hartsville, SC, Hartsville Rgnl, NDB RWY 21, Amdt 1B, CANCELED Hartsville, SC, Hartsville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1 Hartsville, SC, Hartsville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1 Hartsville, SC, Hartsville Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Hartsville, SC, Hartsville Rgnl, VOR-A, Orig Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, ILS RWY 18 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 18 (SA CAT II), Amdt 5 Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport, TN, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1 Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport, TN, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1 Wheeler, TX, Wheeler Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1 Wheeler, TX, Wheeler Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Amdt 1 Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16L, ILS RWY 16L (CAT II), ILS RWY 16L (CAT III), Amdt 3B Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16R, ILS RWY 16R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 16R (CAT II), ILS RWY 16R (CAT III), Amdt 3C Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17, ILS RWY 17 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 17 (SA CAT II), Amdt 14A Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, ILS RWY 34L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 34L (CAT II), ILS RWY 34L (CAT III), Amdt 3B Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34R, ILS RWY 34R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 34R (CAT II), ILS RWY 34R (CAT III), Amdt 4B Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, LDA RWY 35, Orig-C Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16L, Amdt 1A Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16R, Amdt 1A Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2A Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34L, Amdt 1B Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34R, Amdt 1B Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 3 Wakefield, VA, Wakefield Muni, NDB RWY 20, Amdt 5 Wakefield, VA, Wakefield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1 Wakefield, VA, Wakefield Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Auburn, WA, Auburn Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1 Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 14R, Amdt 31 Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, LOC/DME RWY 13R, Amdt 2A, CANCELED Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 14R, Amdt 1

RESCINDED: On July 13, 2017 (82 FR 32230), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31141, Amdt No. 3753 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.23, 97.25, 97.29 and 97.33, the following entries for Livermore, CA, Orlando, FL, and Muscatine, IA, effective August 17, 2017, and are hereby rescinded in their entirety:

Livermore, CA, Livermore Muni, ILS RWY 25R, Amdt 8 Livermore, CA, Livermore Muni, LOC RWY 25R, Orig Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, Amdt 4 Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 4 Muscatine, IA, Muscatine Muni, VOR RWY 6, Orig-D, CANCELED
[FR Doc. 2017-17008 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31148; Amdt. No. 3759] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 17, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. 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.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 28, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 14 September 2017 Magnolia, AR, Ralph C Weiser Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1B Monticello, AR, Monticello Muni/Ellis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1 Keokuk, IA, Keokuk Muni, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 26, Orig-D Tipton, IA, Mathews Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-A Washington, IA, Washington Muni, VOR/DME RWY 36, Amdt 1B Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 31B Angola, IN, Tri-State Steuben County, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 7B, CANCELED Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, LOC BC RWY 14, Amdt 15C, CANCELED Kentland, IN, Kentland Muni, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 27, Orig-A, CANCELED Kentland, IN, Kentland Muni, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 3, CANCELED Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Emporia, VA, Emporia-Greensville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 2A East Troy, WI, East Troy Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1B Fort Atkinson, WI, Fort Atkinson Muni, VOR-A, Orig-D Effective 12 October 2017 Holy Cross, AK, Holy Cross, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-C Holy Cross, AK, Holy Cross, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-C Alexander City, AL, Thomas C Russell Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2 Alexander City, AL, Thomas C Russell Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3 Napa, CA, Napa County, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36L, Amdt 2B Okeechobee, FL, Okeechobee County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-D Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, Amdt 4 Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 4 Panama City, FL, Northwest Florida Beaches Intl, VOR/DME RWY 16, Orig, CANCELED Panama City, FL, Northwest Florida Beaches Intl, VOR/DME RWY 34, Orig, CANCELED West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28R, Amdt 3B Cedar Rapids, IA, The Eastern Iowa, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 18C Cedar Rapids, IA, The Eastern Iowa, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 6E Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, VOR-A, Orig-B Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 20B Smith Center, KS, Smith Center Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1 Smith Center, KS, Smith Center Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1 Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 14A Newberry, MI, Luce County, VOR RWY 11, Amdt 12, CANCELED Newberry, MI, Luce County, VOR RWY 29, Amdt 12, CANCELED Boonville, MO, Jesse Viertel Memorial, VOR-A, Amdt 5A Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 16 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, LOC BC RWY 20, Amdt 13 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 2 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 2 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 4 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, VOR Y RWY 20, Amdt 4 Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, VOR Z RWY 20, Amdt 5 Fulton, MO, Elton Hensley Memorial, VOR-A, Amdt 5 Jefferson City, MO, Jefferson City Memorial, ILS OR LOC RWY 30, Amdt 6 Lee's Summit, MO, Lee's Summit Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2 Rolla/Vichy, MO, Rolla National, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-A Fargo, ND, Hector Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 2 Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 8B Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 4B Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 13, Orig-C Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 15C Berlin, NJ, Camden County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-E Berlin, NJ, Camden County, VOR-B, Amdt 2B Hammonton, NJ, Hammonton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1C Hammonton, NJ, Hammonton Muni, VOR-B, Amdt 2C Millville, NJ, Millville Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 2C Millville, NJ, Millville Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 1B Ocean City, NJ, Ocean City Muni, VOR-A, Orig-B Vineland, NJ, Kroelinger, VOR OR GPS-B, Orig-A Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 5 Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 5 Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2 Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2 Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Syracuse, NY, Syracuse Hancock Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1 Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1 Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, VOR RWY 9, Orig-D, CANCELED Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 7 Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, VOR-A, Orig Cleveland, OH, Burke Lakefront, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Finleyville, PA, Finleyville Airpark, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Finleyville, PA, Finleyville Airpark, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Crewe, VA, Crewe Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-A, CANCELED Crewe, VA, Crewe Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig, CANCELED Crewe, VA, Crewe Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Crewe, VA, Crewe Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig Newport, VT, Northeast Kingdom Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1A Newport, VT, Northeast Kingdom Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3A Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 14R, Amdt 1 Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Fond Du Lac, WI, Fond Du Lac County, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1A Tomahawk, WI, Tomahawk Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 2B Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 1D Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 2A Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-A Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, VOR RWY 29, Orig-C Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 14B Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-B Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-B Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 17C

RESCINDED: On July 13, 2017 (82 FR 32228), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31139, Amdt No. 3751 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.29 and 97.33. The following entries for Orlando, FL, effective July 20, 2017, are hereby rescinded in their entirety:

Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, Amdt 4 Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 4
[FR Doc. 2017-17005 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31146; Amdt. No. 3758] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 17, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. 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.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 14, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject 17-Aug-17 AR Rogers Rogers Executive—Carter Field 7/2644 5/26/17 This NOTAM, published in TL 17-17, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. 17-Aug-17 AR Rogers Rogers Executive—Carter Field 7/2645 5/26/17 This NOTAM, published in TL 17-17, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. 17-Aug-17 MI Three Rivers Three Rivers Muni Dr Haines 7/4244 6/20/17 This NOTAM, published in TL 17-17, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. 17-Aug-17 WA Yakima Yakima Air Terminal/Mcallister Field 7/0247 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) X RWY 27, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 MD Baltimore Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall 7/0382 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 MD Baltimore Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall 7/0387 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 15R, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Intl 7/0391 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5L, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Intl 7/0394 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5R, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 OH Wilmington Wilmington Air Park 7/0707 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Orig. 17-Aug-17 CA San Jose Norman Y Mineta San Jose Intl 7/0708 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30L, Amdt 3A. 17-Aug-17 ND Bismarck Bismarck Muni 7/0710 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 OK Tulsa Tulsa Intl 7/0711 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36R, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 SC Myrtle Beach Myrtle Beach Intl 7/0717 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 SC Charleston Charleston AFB/Intl 7/0718 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 15, Amdt 3B. 17-Aug-17 TX Fort Worth Fort Worth Meacham Intl 7/0723 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 SC Columbia Columbia Metropolitan 7/0724 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 TN Nashville Nashville Intl 7/0725 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 20L, Amdt 2A. 17-Aug-17 TX Dallas Dallas Love Field 7/0726 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13L, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 TX Abilene Abilene Rgnl 7/0727 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35R, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 TN Memphis Memphis Intl 7/0737 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 2B. 17-Aug-17 TX Corpus Christi Corpus Christi Intl 7/0740 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 13, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 ME Portland Portland Intl Jetport 7/0750 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 MI Detroit Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 7/0761 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 21L, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Intl 7/0913 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 14, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Intl 7/0921 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23L, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Intl 7/0922 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23R, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Intl 7/0927 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 32, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 SC Columbia Columbia Metropolitan 7/0930 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 MI Flint Bishop Intl 7/0940 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 VA Richmond Richmond Intl 7/0944 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 16, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 IL Belleville Scott AFB/MidAmerica 7/1217 7/10/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32R, Orig-C. 17-Aug-17 IN Fort Wayne Fort Wayne Intl 7/1218 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 IN Gary Gary/Chicago Intl 7/1228 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 NY New York John F Kennedy Intl 7/1338 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 31R, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 TN Crossville Crossville Memorial-Whitson Field 7/1343 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 KS Chanute Chanute Martin Johnson 7/1427 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 TN Memphis Memphis Intl 7/1979 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 18R, Amdt 2C. 17-Aug-17 AL Dothan Dothan Rgnl 7/1998 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 NC Winston Salem Smith Reynolds 7/2473 7/5/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 29C. 17-Aug-17 NC Winston Salem Smith Reynolds 7/2484 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 NC Winston Salem Smith Reynolds 7/2514 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 NC Winston Salem Smith Reynolds 7/2518 7/5/17 VOR/DME RWY 15, Amdt 1C. 17-Aug-17 LA Shreveport Shreveport Rgnl 7/2751 7/7/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, AMDT 2. 17-Aug-17 LA Alexandria Alexandria Intl 7/3442 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 KY Covington Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl 7/3449 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 27, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 KS Wichita Wichita Dwight D Eisenhower National 7/3451 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1R, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 KS Wichita Wichita Dwight D Eisenhower National 7/3452 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 19R, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 IN Evansville Evansville Rgnl 7/4198 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 AR Rogers Rogers Executive—Carter Field 7/5115 7/7/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 AR Rogers Rogers Executive—Carter Field 7/5116 7/7/17 VOR RWY 2, Amdt 13D. 17-Aug-17 NC Fayetteville Fayetteville Rgnl/Grannis Field 7/5271 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 3A. 17-Aug-17 AK Igiugig Igiugig 7/5822 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-B. 17-Aug-17 AK Igiugig Igiugig 7/5823 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-B. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Metropolitan 7/5836 7/5/17 NDB RWY 15, Amdt 2A. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Metropolitan 7/5837 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Metropolitan 7/5838 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Metropolitan 7/5839 7/5/17 VOR RWY 33, Amdt 10B. 17-Aug-17 MI Saginaw MBS Intl 7/6134 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 MI Muskegon Muskegon County 7/6136 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2A. 17-Aug-17 MO Kansas City Kansas City Intl 7/6137 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 27, Amdt 2A. 17-Aug-17 MS Meridian Key Field 7/6138 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 3A. 17-Aug-17 MA New Bedford New Bedford Rgnl 7/6203 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 CA Santa Rosa Charles M Schulz—Sonoma County 7/6204 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 7/6206 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 2C. 17-Aug-17 WA Bellingham Bellingham Intl 7/6210 7/7/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 7/6408 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 6R, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 WA Pasco Tri-Cities 7/6618 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21R, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 OH Wilmington Wilmington Air Park 7/6620 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Orig. 17-Aug-17 RI Providence Theodore Francis Green State 7/6622 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 OH Akron Akron-Canton Rgnl 7/6624 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 OH Akron Akron-Canton Rgnl 7/6628 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 OH Akron Akron-Canton Rgnl 7/6630 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig. 17-Aug-17 CA San Francisco San Francisco Intl 7/6632 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L, Amdt 5A. 17-Aug-17 CA San Francisco San Francisco Intl 7/6636 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 28R, Amdt 5A. 17-Aug-17 MI Three Rivers Three Rivers Muni Dr Haines 7/6809 7/10/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-B. 17-Aug-17 FL Vero Beach Vero Beach Muni 7/6938 6/29/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 TX Midland Midland Intl Air And Space Port 7/7019 6/29/17 VOR OR TACAN RWY 16R, Amdt 23B. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7074 07/11/17 LOC/DME-A, Amdt 9. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7076 07/11/17 RNAV (GPS) W RWY 26, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7077 07/11/17 RNAV (GPS) X RWY 26, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7078 07/11/17 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 26, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7080 07/11/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 8, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7082 07/11/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 8, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7084 07/11/17 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7085 07/11/17 VOR/DME-C, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7086 07/11/17 ILS RWY 26, Amdt 3A. 17-Aug-17 CO Rifle Garfield County Rgnl 7/7090 07/11/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 10. 17-Aug-17 TX Bay City Bay City Muni 7/7163 7/6/17 VOR-A, Amdt 4C. 17-Aug-17 NY Albany Albany Intl 7/7368 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 19, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 WA Spokane Spokane Intl 7/7390 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21, Amdt 2A. 17-Aug-17 WA Spokane Spokane Intl 7/7391 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 2B. 17-Aug-17 NC Greensboro Piedmont Triad Intl 7/8293 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5R, Amdt 2C. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8444 7/5/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 9. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8445 7/5/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 21B. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8446 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8447 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8448 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8449 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8450 7/5/17 LOC BC RWY 24, Amdt 19A. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8451 7/5/17 VOR-A, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel Intl 7/8452 7/5/17 RADAR 1, Amdt 9C. 17-Aug-17 CA Sacramento Sacramento Intl 7/8500 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34L, Amdt 2. 17-Aug-17 CA Sacramento Sacramento Intl 7/8510 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16R, Amdt 2A. 17-Aug-17 CA Oakland Metropolitan Oakland Intl 7/8514 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30, Amdt 5B. 17-Aug-17 CA Oakland Metropolitan Oakland Intl 7/8519 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 12, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 DC Washington Washington Dulles Intl 7/9191 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 19L, Amdt 2A. 17-Aug-17 DC Washington Washington Dulles Intl 7/9192 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1L, Orig-B. 17-Aug-17 DC Washington Washington Dulles Intl 7/9195 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 DC Washington Washington Dulles Intl 7/9197 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 1C, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 DC Washington Washington Dulles Intl 7/9199 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 1R, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 DC Washington Washington Dulles Intl 7/9205 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 19C, Amdt 3C. 17-Aug-17 TX Waco Waco Rgnl 7/9683 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-A. 17-Aug-17 OH Columbus Rickenbacker Intl 7/9688 7/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5R, Amdt 1A. 17-Aug-17 TX Houston William P Hobby 7/9693 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 IL Chicago Chicago O'Hare Intl 7/9714 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2D. 17-Aug-17 IL Chicago Chicago O'Hare Intl 7/9719 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 2A. 17-Aug-17 IL Chicago Chicago O'Hare Intl 7/9720 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 3. 17-Aug-17 IL Chicago Chicago O'Hare Intl 7/9722 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28C, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 IL Chicago Chicago O'Hare Intl 7/9728 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28R, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 IL Chicago Chicago O'Hare Intl 7/9729 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 27L, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 IL Chicago Chicago O'Hare Intl 7/9730 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) PRM RWY 10C (CLOSE PARALLEL), Orig. 17-Aug-17 IL Chicago Chicago O'Hare Intl 7/9732 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) PRM RWY 28C, Orig. 17-Aug-17 KS Wichita Wichita Dwight D Eisenhower National 7/9734 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 1L, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 LA New Orleans Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl 7/9736 7/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 29, Amdt 4. 17-Aug-17 KY Covington Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl 7/9738 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36C, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 KY Covington Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl 7/9743 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36L, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 KY Covington Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl 7/9744 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 9, Amdt 1. 17-Aug-17 KY Covington Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl 7/9772 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18C, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 KY Covington Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl 7/9775 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18L, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 KY Covington Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl 7/9777 6/29/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18R, Amdt 1B. 17-Aug-17 WI Green Bay Green Bay-Austin Straubel Intl 7/9784 7/13/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2.
[FR Doc. 2017-17009 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31149; Amdt. No. 3760] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 17, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. 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.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420)Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Issued in Washington, DC on July 28, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject 17-Aug-17 OH Cleveland Burke Lakefront 7/4788 6/9/17 This NOTAM, published in TL 17-17, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. 17-Aug-17 OH Cleveland Burke Lakefront 7/5992 6/9/17 This NOTAM, published in TL 17-17, is hereby rescinded in its entirety.
[FR Doc. 2017-17010 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0770] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Carquinez Strait, Martinez, CA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Union Pacific Railroad Drawbridge across the Carquinez Strait, mile 7.0, at Martinez, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to conduct emergency repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0770, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Union Pacific Railroad Company has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Union Pacific Railroad Drawbridge, over the Carquinez Strait, mile 7.0, at Martinez, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 70 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 23, 2017, to allow the bridge owner to conduct emergency repairs. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Dated: August 11, 2017. Carl T. Hausner, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-17400 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0273] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Flagler Memorial (SR A1A), Royal Park (SR 704), and the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) bridges, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), miles 1020.8, 1022.6 and 1024.7 at Palm Beach, Florida. This deviation will test for 180 days a change to the drawbridge operation schedules to determine whether a permanent change to the schedules is needed. This deviation is necessary to reduce traffic congestion and ensure the safety of the roadways, while meeting the needs of waterways users, whenever the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be visiting Mar-a-Lago. This deviation allows the Flagler Memorial and Royal Park bridges to open once an hour during a 4 hour period on weekdays when the President is staying at Mar-a-Lago, and the Southern Boulevard Bridge to remain closed to navigation when the presidential motorcade is in transit.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from September 1, 2017, until February 27, 2018.

Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0273 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Eddie Lawrence with the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Office; telephone 305-415-6946, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

When the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present at Mar-a-Lago, traffic backups have been caused by drawbridge openings in the Palm Beach area. The increase in traffic occurs due to the closure of Southern Boulevard when the President is visiting Mar-a-Lago. This requires through traffic to use the Flagler Memorial and Royal Park Bridges to cross the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW). Due to the increased traffic using the Flagler Memorial and Royal Park bridges when the President is in town, the Mayor of Palm Beach has asked the Coast Guard and the bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation, to test a change to the operating regulations of those bridges.

During this temporary deviation, the Flagler Memorial and Royal Park Bridges will only be required to open once an hour, on the quarter and half hour, respectively, starting at 2:15 p.m. through 5:30 p.m. during the weekdays only. The Flagler memorial Bridge will open at 2:15 p.m., 3:15 p.m., 4:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., weekdays, if vessels are requesting an opening. The Royal Park (Middle) Bridge will open at 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m., 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., weekdays, if vessels are requesting an opening.

The operating schedule of the Southern Boulevard Bridge, which is closest to Mar-a-Lago and also crosses the AICW, will not be affected during the aforementioned times. However it will be allowed to remain closed whenever the presidential motorcade is in transit. At all other times all three bridges will operate per their normal schedules. The current operating regulation is under 33 CFR 117.261 at paragraphs (u), (v), and (w), respectively.

This general deviation will have an impact on marine traffic while alleviating some vehicle traffic backups. Tugs with tows are not exempt from this regulation.

The Coast Guard will inform waterway users of the schedule changes through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. Mariners should also listen to local news organizations to determine when the President, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are visiting Mar-a-Largo.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. The Coast Guard will continue to evaluate the impact to mariners navigating this area during the closure periods and is requesting comments be submitted during the first 60 days of this deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086). Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

Barry Dragon, Director, Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-17387 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0764] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Port Huron Float-Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Port Huron, MI. This zone is intended to restrict and control movement of vessels in a portion of the St. Clair River. Though this is an unsanctioned, non-permitted marine event, this zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters near Port Huron, MI, during a float down event.

DATES:

This temporary final rule is effective from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. August 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0764 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

During the afternoon of August 20, 2017, a non-sanctioned public event is scheduled to take place. The event is advertised over various social-media sites, in which a large number of persons float down a segment of the St. Clair River, using inner tubes and other similar floatation devices. The 2017 Float-Down event will occur between approximately 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on August 20, 2017. This event has taken place in the month of August annually since 2009.

No private or municipal entity requested a marine event permit from the Coast Guard for this event, and it has not received state or federal permits since its inception. The event has drawn over 3,000 participants of various ages annually. Despite plans put together by federal, state and local officials, emergency responders and law enforcement officials have been overburdened pursuing safety during this event. Medical emergencies, people drifting across the international border, and people trespassing on residential property when trying to get out of the water before the designated finish line are some of the numerous difficulties encountered during the Float-Down event.

During the 2014 Float-Down event, a 19-year-old participant died. During the 2016 float down, a wind shift caused thousands of U.S. citizen rafters with no passports to drift into Canadian waters. The current and wind made it impossible for the rafters to paddle back into U.S. waters, causing significant coordination with the Canadian authorities. Despite these events, promotional information for the event continues to be published. More than 3,000 people are again anticipated to float down the river this year. No public or private organization holds themselves responsible as the event sponsor. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not receive full and final details regarding the event or the number of participants until the time of the event.

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

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) determined the float down poses significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of participants, strong river currents, limited rescue resources, and difficult emergency response scenarios could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities to Float-Down participants and spectators. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a safety zone around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on August 20, 2017. The safety zone will begin at Lighthouse Beach and encompass all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at position 43°00.416′ N.; 082°25.333′ W., extending east to the international boundary to a point at position 43°00.416′ N.; 082°25.033′ W., following south along the international boundary to a point at position 42°54.500′ N.; 082°27.683′ W., extending west to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42°54.500′ N.; 082°27.966′ W., and following north along the U.S. shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Vessel operators must contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to transit through this safety zone. Additionally, no one under the age of 18 will be permitted to enter the safety zone if they are not wearing a Coast Guard-approved Personal Floatation Device (PFD). The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a designated area of the St. Clair River from 12 p.m. thru 8 p.m. on August 20, 2017. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting eight hours on August 20, 2017 that will prohibit entry within the 7 mile portion of St. Clair River. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0764 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0764 Safety Zone; Port Huron Float-Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI.

(a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all U.S. navigable waters of southern Lake Huron and the St. Clair River adjacent to Port Huron, MI, beginning at Lighthouse Beach and encompassing all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at position 43°00.416′ N.; 082°25.333′ W., extending east to the international boundary to a point at position 43°00.416′ N.; 082°25.033′ W., following south along the international boundary to a point at position 42°54.500′ N.; 082°27.683′ W., extending west to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42°54.500′ N.; 082°27.966′ W., and following north along the U.S. shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) will be enforced from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. on August 20, 2017.

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

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

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

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

Dated: August 10, 2017. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2017-17386 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [USCG-2017-0789; 1625-AA00] Safety Zone; St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, MI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 200-yard radius of the position of the grounded vessel, M/V CALUMET on the north end of Sugar Island. The safety zone is needed to provide for the safety of life and property on the navigable waters during emergency salvage operations onboard a bulk carrier that ran aground. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sault Ste. Marie.

DATES:

This rule is effective with actual notice from August 10, 2017 until August 17, 2017. This rule is effective without actual notice on August 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0789 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Sean V. Murphy, Waterways Management Chief, Sector Sault Ste. Marie, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-3223, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because M/V CALUMET ran aground on the north side of Sugar Island in the St. Marys River on the night of 09 August 2017 and immediate action is needed to investigate the incident and respond to the potential safety hazards associated with salvage of the vessel. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because the Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by 10 August 2017.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to investigate the incident and respond to the potential safety hazards associated with emergency salvage operations of M/V CALUMET.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Sault Ste. Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with emergency salvage operations starting 10 August 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of the aground vessel in position 46-29.3N 084-18.1W. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the incident is investigated and the vessel is salvaged.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from August 10, 2017 to August 17, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of the aground M/V CALUMET in position 46-29.3N 084-18.1W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the incident is investigated and the vessel is salvaged. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 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, this rule 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 size, location, and limited duration of the safety zone. We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal and short-term impact on the economy, especially as balanced against the risk of serious environmental consequences and potential long-term delays and economic loss to industry posed by the grounded vessel if this rule is not enacted. Further, this regulatory action will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be of relatively small size and short duration, and it is designed to minimize the impact on navigation. Moreover, vessels may still transit through the regulated area when permitted by the Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

(1) This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the navigable waters in the St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, MI.

(2) This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: There is ample room in the channel for recreational vessels to transit outside of the safety zone. The Coast Guard will notify mariners before activating the zone by appropriate means which may include but are not limited to an Advisory Notice and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 7 days that will prohibit entry within 200 yards of the aground M/V CALUMET. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0789 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0789 Safety Zone; St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, MI.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters within a 200 yard radius from the aground M/V CALUMET, in position 46-29.3N 084-18.1W, from surface to bottom. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.

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

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

(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by calling the Sector Sault Ste. Marie Command Center at 906-635-3319. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced between August 10, 2017 through August 17, 2017.

Dated: August 11, 2017. M.R. Broz, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie.
[FR Doc. 2017-17404 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0772] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Willamette River, Lake Oswego, OR AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Willamette River in the vicinity of George Rogers Park in Lake Oswego, OR. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during a fireworks display on September 9, 2017. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from September 9, 2017 from 7:30 p.m. through 10:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0772 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Laura Springer, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Western Display Fireworks, Ltd. will be conducting a fireworks display from 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on September 9, 2017. The Fireworks are to be launched from the beach at George Rogers Park. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 400-foot radius of the barge used to launch the fireworks display.

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable due to the date of the event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on September 9, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 400 foot radius of launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7:30 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on September 9, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 400 feet of the barge being used to launch the fireworks display from position 45°24′36.30″ N., 122°39′34.75″ W. on the Willamette River in Lake Oswego, OR. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 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, this rule 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 size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Willamette River for two hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than two and a half hours that will prohibit entry within 400 feet of the barge used to launch the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T13-0772 to read as follows:
§ 165.T13-0772 Safety Zone; Willamette River, Lake Oswego, OR.

(a) Safety zone. The following area is designated a safety zone: Waters of the Willamette River, within a 400-feet radius of the fireworks barge located at 45°24′36.30″ N., 122°39′34.75″ W. at George Rogers Park in Lake Oswego, OR.

(b) Regulations. In accordance with § 165.23, no person may enter or remain in this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or his designated representative. Also in accordance with § 165.23, no person may bring into, or allow to remain in this safety zone any vehicle, vessel, or object unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or his designated representative.

(c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on September 9, 2017.

Dated: August 9, 2017. D.F. Berliner, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2017-17422 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0085; FRL-9966-24-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; NC; Air Curtain Burners AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of North Carolina through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources), Division of Air Quality (DAQ), on October 14, 2004, March 24, 2006, and January 31, 2008. The revisions which EPA is approving are changes to the air curtain burner regulation of the North Carolina SIP. These revisions are part of North Carolina's strategy to meet and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA has taken or will take action with respect to all other portions of these SIP revisions. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective October 16, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 18, 2017. If adverse comment is received, EPA 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-2007-0085 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 or Nacosta C. Ward, 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] Ms. Ward can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140, or via electronic mail at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In this rulemaking, EPA is taking direct final action to approve portions of the revisions to the North Carolina SIP submitted on October 14, 2004, March 24, 2006, and January 31, 2008. EPA is taking direct final action on the changes to 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D—Air Pollution Control Requirements, Section .1904, Air Curtain Burners. These changes are a part of North Carolina's strategy to attain and maintain the NAAQS and are approvable into the North Carolina SIP pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. EPA is not taking action on 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D—Air Pollution Control Requirements, Section .1201, Purpose and Scope, submitted on January 31, 2008, because this rule pertains to incinerators and addresses emission guidelines under CAA sections 111(d) and 129 and 40 CFR part 60; it is not a part of the federally-approved SIP. EPA has taken or will take separate action on all other portions of these SIP submissions.

II. Analysis of the State Submittals

North Carolina submitted revisions to 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D—Air Pollution Control Requirements, Section .1904, Air Curtain Burners for incorporation into the federally-approved SIP. Detailed descriptions of the changes are below:

A. Changes to 2D Section .1904—Submitted October 14, 2004

The changes contained in the October 14, 2004, SIP submission require that permits be obtained for air curtain burners as defined by 40 CFR 60.2245 through 60.2265, permanent burning sites or materials transported from burning site to burning site. These permitted air curtain burners must also have a certified visible emissions reader onsite at all times and during the operation of the burner to ensure that the visible emissions can be read for compliance purposes. A provision has also been added to cease operation of air curtain burners in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone nonattainment areas on ozone action days with status “orange” or above.

North Carolina's submission modifies the provision which governs air curtain burning where burning should be at least 500 feet away from any dwelling, group of dwellings, or commercial or institutional establishment or other occupied structure not located on the property where the burning is conducted. These burning occurrences must be approved before the initiation of the burn. The daily log at permanent air curtain burner sites must be maintained onsite for two years and be available for inspection. If an owner or operator is using a different technology or method other than an air curtain burner as defined under 2D Section .1902,1 the owner or operator must demonstrate that the burner is at least as effective. The revision also specifies that if it is a burner constructed after November 30, 1999, or has been modified after June 1, 2001, it must comply with 40 CFR 60.2245 through 60.2265 (i.e., the “Air Curtain Incinerators” portion of 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC (Standards of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units).

1 “Air Curtain Burner” as defined in 2D Section .1902 is a stationary or portable combustion device that directs a plane of high velocity forced draft air through a manifold head into a pit or container with vertical walls in such a manner as to maintain a curtain of air over the surface of the pit and a circulating motion of air under the curtain.

This SIP revision increases the six-minute average plume opacity limit during operation from five percent to ten percent. North Carolina states that the purpose of this change is to align the state rule with federal requirements. The revision also extends the allowed startup time of the burners from 30 to 45 minutes. The revision does not change an existing allowance for one six-minute period with an average opacity of more than ten percent but no more than 35 percent during any one-hour period.

On April 11, 2017, DAQ submitted a non-interference or section 110(l) demonstration which describes how these changes will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. North Carolina states there are currently seven air curtain burners in the State that are subject to 2D Section .1904 but that, due to source size and construction commencement dates, none are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC. Additionally, North Carolina states that any change in source emissions associated with the alignment of the opacity limit of 2D Section .1904 with the federal regulations would be minimal. North Carolina reports that these facilities are not routinely operational, as they are used primarily for elimination of debris after severe storms. North Carolina also demonstrates that reported pollutant emissions from these units have been very low and that the design values in the counties closest to them (all in the eastern part of the State) are well below the Fine Particulate Matter NAAQS. North Carolina also notes that there are currently no nonattainment areas for any NAAQS in the State and that these changes to the SIP are not anticipated to cause any area to come out of compliance with the NAAQS.

B. Changes to Section .1904—Submitted March 24, 2006

The changes contained in the March 24, 2006, SIP submission are clarifications to existing text in the regulation. The changes make the regulation applicable to air curtain burners in general and not only those currently identified in paragraph (a), which are burners subject to 40 CFR 60.2245-60.2265 or located at permanent burning sites or where materials are transported in from another burning site. The term “ozone forecast area” is also being replaced with “air quality forecast area” in order to address all pollutants instead of only ozone.

C. Changes to Section. 1904—Submitted January 31, 2008

The changes contained in the January 31, 2008, SIP submission expand the scope of the types of air curtain burners for which air quality permits must be issued to also include air curtain burners subject to 40 CFR 60.2810 through 60.2870, 60.2970 through 60.2975, and 60.3062 through 60.3069. The changes specify the opacity standards to which the various air curtain burner types are subject as outlined in 40 CFR part 60, instead of the opacity standards as previously outlined in the existing subparagraphs of the regulation. Lastly, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements have also been expanded to note the applicability of the additional requirements for owner and operators of air curtain burners subject to 40 CFR 60.2810 through 60.2870, 60.2970 through 60.2975, and 60.3062 through 60.3069.

III. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D—Air Pollution Control Requirements, Sect. .1904, Air Curtain Burners effective March 11, 2004, November 10, 2005, and July 1, 2007, revising air curtain burner requirements. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving the aforementioned revisions to the North Carolina SIP submitted by the State of North Carolina on October 14, 2004, March 24, 2006, and January 31, 2008, pursuant to section 110 because these revisions are consistent with the CAA. Changes to the other sections in these submissions will be or have been processed in a separate action, as appropriate, for approval into the North Carolina SIP. As noted above, EPA is not taking action on changes to 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D—Air Pollution Control Requirements, Section .1201, Purpose and Scope, as submitted on January 31, 2008, because this rule pertains to incinerators and addresses emission guidelines under CAA sections 111(d) and 129 and 40 CFR part 60 and is not a part of the federally-approved SIP.

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 October 16, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 18, 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 adverse 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 October 16, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 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 October 16, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: August 4, 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 II—North Carolina 2. In § 52.1770, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry “Sect .1904” to read as follows:
§ 52.1770 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

Table 1—EPA-Approved North Carolina Regulations State citation Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section .1900 Open Burning *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sect .1904 Air Curtain Burners 7/1/2007 8/17/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-17244 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557, FRL-9966-06-Region 8] Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Colorado to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6563, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are set forth in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25999).

    In our proposed rule, the EPA proposed to approve some infrastructure elements and to take no action on others for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's July 10, 2013 and December 1, 2015 certifications,1 respectively. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve those infrastructure elements from the State's certifications for which we proposed approval.

    1 “Where an air agency determines that the provisions in or referred to by its existing EPA approved SIP are adequate with respect to a given infrastructure SIP element (or subelement) even in light of the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the air agency may make a SIP submission in the form of a certification.” EPA's “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),” September 13, 2013, at 7.

    II. Response to Comments

    No comments were received on our June 6, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking.

    III. Final Action

    For reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we are taking no action on are reflected in Table 2.

    A comprehensive summary of infrastructure elements and new rules being approved into the Colorado SIP through this final rule action are provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

    Table 1—List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Approving Approval July 10, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). December 1, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). Table 2—List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Taking No Action On No action
  • (Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action)
  • July 13, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2. December 1, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
    IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 16, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA Section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 28, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 G—Colorado 2. In 52.353, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 52.353 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

    (d) The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment provided submissions to meet infrastructure requirements for the State of Colorado for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS were received on July 10, 2013 and December 1, 2015, respectively. The State's Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is approved with respect to section (110)(a)(1) and the following elements of section (110)(a)(2): (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

    [FR Doc. 2017-17232 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0382; FRL-9966-31-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revisions To Implement the Revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia state implementation plan (SIP). The revisions pertain to amendments made to the Virginia Administrative Code. These amendments updated the State Air Pollution Control Board's Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution to be consistent with EPA's final rule implementing the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). The amendments revised a regulation listing nonattainment areas under the 1997 ozone NAAQS and a regulation regarding the 1997 ozone standard to reflect the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which was effective April 6, 2015. The amendments also added clarifying text to two transportation and general conformity regulations in order to reflect the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving these revisions updating the Virginia Administrative Code to reflect the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 16, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 18, 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-R03-OAR-2017-0382 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by e-mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Ground level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight. NOX and VOC are referred to as ozone precursors and are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including motor vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, and area wide sources, such as consumer products and lawn and garden equipment. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to ozone. These effects are more pronounced in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. In response to this scientific evidence, EPA promulgated in 1979 the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).

    EPA is required to review and reevaluate the ozone NAAQS every 5 years in order to consider updated information regarding the effects of ozone on human health and the environment. Since February 8, 1979, the date of the first ozone NAAQS promulgation, EPA has reviewed and revised the ozone standard to protect the public health and welfare. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1997 ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 62 FR 38855. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of public health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The 0.075 ppm standard is referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).1

    1 On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the ground-level ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). This rulemaking addresses the 2008 ozone NAAQS and does not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

    On March 6, 2015, EPA established a final rule addressing a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 80 FR 12264. This final rule also revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS as of April 6, 2015 and established anti-backsliding requirements that became effective once the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked. The anti-backsliding provisions in 40 CFR 51.1105 require States to retain all applicable control requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, while enabling areas, where possible, to focus planning efforts on meeting the more protective 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    On February 10, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) submitted a formal SIP revision (Revision G16). The SIP revision consists of amendments made to the Virginia Administrative Code to reflect the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS according to the final rule established by EPA on March 6, 2015 implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    The February 10, 2017 SIP revision submittal includes amended versions of provisions in the State Air Pollution Control Board's Regulation for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution including 9VAC5-20-204, 9VAC5-30-55, 9VAC5-151-20, and 9VAC5-160-30, which were adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on September 9, 2016 and effective November 16, 2016. Virginia requests that EPA approve this submittal so that these amended regulations become part of the Virginia SIP.

    The amendment to 9VAC5-20-204 added text to the section stating that the list of Northern Virginia moderate nonattainment areas under the 1997 ozone NAAQS is no longer effective after April 6, 2015, the effective date of the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). The amendment to 9VAC5-30-55 added text to the section stating that the primary and secondary ambient air quality standard of 0.08 ppm shall no longer apply after April 6, 2015. Virginia also amended the Regulation for Transportation Conformity and the Regulation for General Conformity by adding clarifying text to 9VAC5-151-20 and 9VAC5-160-30 stating that “The provisions of this chapter shall not apply in nonattainment and maintenance areas that were designated nonattainment or maintenance under a federal standard that has been revoked.” These revisions to the Virginia Administrative Code reflect EPA's revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

    EPA's review of this material indicates the February 10, 2017 submittal is approvable as it revises regulations to be consistent with EPA's final rule implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). The revisions update regulations to reflect the revocation of the 1997 NAAQS, which was effective April 6, 2015. Therefore, the revisions do not affect emissions of air pollutants or interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirements in the CAA. Thus, EPA finds the revision approvable in accordance with section 110, including section 110(l), of the CAA.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Virginia SIP revision submitted on February 10, 2017, which includes revisions to several sections of the Virginia Administrative Code, including 9VAC5-20-204, 9VAC5-30-55, 9VAC5-151-20, and 9VAC5-160-30 which will be incorporated by reference into the Virginia SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 16, 2017 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 18, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to 9VAC5-20-204, 9VAC5-30-55, 9VAC5-151-20, and 9VAC5-160-30 of the State Air Pollution Control Board's Regulation for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution discussed in Section II of this preamble. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.2 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 October 16, 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 action.

    This action to approve revised provisions of the Virginia Administrative Code including 9VAC5-20-204, 9VAC5-30-55, 9VAC5-151-20, and 9VAC5-160-30 for inclusion in the Virginia SIP 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 3, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries for Sections 5-20-204, 5-30-55, 5-151-20, and 5-160-30. The revised text reads as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation
  • [former SIP citation]
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 20 General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part II Air Quality Programs *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-20-204 Nonattainment Areas 11/16/16 8/17/17, [Insert Federal Register Citation] Addition of Subdivision C.
  • Previous approval 8/14/15.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 30 Ambient Air Quality Standards [Part III] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-30-55 Ozone (8-hour, 0.08 ppm) 11/16/16 8/17/17, [Insert Federal Register Citation] Subdivision D. is revised to read that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS no longer apply after April 6, 2015.
  • Previous approval 6/11/13.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 151 Transportation Conformity *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part II General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-151-20 Applicability 11/16/16 8/17/17, [Insert Federal Register Citation] Subdivision B. is amended to address revoked federal standards.
  • Previous approval 11/20/09.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 160 General Conformity *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part II General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-160-30 Applicability 11/16/16 8/17/17, [Insert Federal Register Citation] Subdivision A. is amended to address revoked federal standards.
  • Previous approval 12/12/11.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-17235 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0174; FRL-9966-29-Region 4] Air Plan Approval: Alabama; Transportation Conformity AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of a revision to the Alabama State Implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Alabama on May 8, 2013, for the purpose of amending the transportation conformity rules to be consistent with Federal requirements.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective October 16, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 18, 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-2017-0174 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Purpose A. Call to States for Conformity SIP Revisions

    In the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), Congress recognized that actions taken by federal agencies could affect a State, Tribal, or local agency's ability to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Congress added section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506) to the CAA to ensure federal agencies' proposed actions conform to the applicable SIP, Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. That section requires federal entities to find that the emissions from the federal action will conform with the purposes of the SIP, TIP or FIP or not otherwise interfere with the State's or Tribe's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

    The CAA Amendments of 1990 clarified and strengthened the provisions in section 176(c). Because certain provisions of section 176(c) apply only to highway and mass transit funding and approvals actions, EPA published two sets of regulations to implement section 176(c). The Transportation Conformity Regulations, (40 CFR part 51, subpart T, and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) first published on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), address federal actions related to highway and mass transit funding and approval actions. The conformity regulations have been revised numerous times since then.

    When promulgated in 1993, the Federal Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 51.395 mandated that the transportation conformity SIP revisions incorporate several provisions of the rule in verbatim form, except insofar as needed to give effect to a stated intent in the revision to establish criteria and procedures more stringent than the requirements stated in these sections.

    B. What is transportation conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure that federally-supported highway projects, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Transportation conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, as well as those areas redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas), with plans developed under section 175A of the Act for the following transportation related pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.

    C. Transportation Conformity Provisions Affected by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

    On August 10, 2005, the SAFETEA-LU was signed into law and provided changes to the CAA that streamlined the requirements for conformity SIPs at section 176(c). Prior to SAFETEA-LU, states were required to address all of the Federal conformity rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs. After SAFETEA-LU amended CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) and EPA revised 40 CFR 51.390 to be consistent with those amendments, states are required to address and tailor only three sections of the conformity rule in their transportation conformity SIPs. (The requirement that states adopt the Federal conformity rule verbatim results in the need for states to submit a SIP revision within one year of EPA's adoption of any changes, including minor changes, to the rule.) The three sections of the federal rule which must meet a state's individual circumstances are: 40 CFR 93.105, which addresses consultation procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), which requires that written commitments be obtained for control measures that are not included in a Metropolitan Planning Organization's transportation plan and transportation improvement program prior to a conformity determination, and that such commitments be fulfilled; and, 40 CFR 93.125(c) which requires that written commitments be obtained for mitigation measures prior to a project level conformity determination, and that project sponsors must comply with such commitments. In general, states are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the conformity rule, and they are able to streamline their SIP-approved conformity requirements consistent with changes made through SAFETEA-LU.

    D. Prior Approval of Alabama Conformity SIP Revisions

    EPA has approved several revisions to the Alabama SIP to incorporate transportation conformity requirements consistent with the Federal regulations. Initially, on May 11, 2000, EPA approved Alabama's SIP revision to address consultation requirements for transportation conformity. See 65 FR 30358. On March 26, 2009, EPA approved revisions to the transportation conformity requirements in the Alabama SIP to cover the specific applicable areas and address new requirements related to both the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. See FR 74 13118. EPA also approved a subsequent revision to Alabama's transportation conformity requirements on September 26, 2012. See 77 FR 59100.

    II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    On May 8, 2013, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management submitted a SIP revision to EPA to make two changes to its transportation conformity requirements. First, the State changed its regulations at Alabama Administrative Code section 335-3-17-.01, Transportation Conformity, to reflect the January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4420) amendments to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A that address the 2005 SAFETEA-LU. That change in Alabama's regulation streamlines the State's transportation conformity SIP to include only §§ 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c), consistent with Federal requirements, and not the provisions of 40 CFR 93 in entirety.

    On March 14, 2012, EPA finalized the rule entitled “Transportation Conformity Rule Restructuring Amendments.” See 77 FR 14979. Through that final action, EPA restructured several sections of the transportation conformity rule so that they apply to any new or revised NAAQS. Specifically, EPA amended §§ 93.101, 93.105, 93.109, 93.116, 93.118, 93.119, and 93.121 of the Transportation Conformity Rule. In its May 8, 2013, SIP revision, Alabama requests that EPA incorporates by reference subsequent Federal changes EPA promulgated in the Transportation Conformity Rule Restructuring Amendments. Although Alabama's submission mentions that it is incorporating by reference provisions in EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule Restructuring Amendments, the only relevant portion for incorporation by reference is the change that EPA made to section 93.105 because, in this same submission, Alabama changed the State regulations and transportation conformity requirements in its SIP to address only §§ 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c), in accordance with EPA's regulations. The changes EPA made to § 93.105 were administrative in nature and involved updates to citations, revision of introductory paragraphs, and redesignating paragraphs.

    EPA has reviewed Alabama's submittal to ensure consistency with the current CAA, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and EPA regulations governing state procedures for transportation and general conformity (40 CFR part 93, subparts A and B). The May 8, 2013, SIP revision, upon final approval by EPA, removes specific provisions of Alabama Administrative Code section 335-3-17-.01, “Transportation Conformity,” from the SIP that are no longer required in light of the SAFETEA-LU amendments. With the removal of these specific provisions of 335-3-17-.01 from the SIP, the federal rules in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A will directly govern transportation conformity of federal actions in the State of Alabama. This revision complies with the requirements of CAA section 176(c)(4)(e) and 40 CFR 51.390(b). 40 CFR part 93, subpart A continues to subject certain Federal actions to transportation conformity requirements without the need for identical state rules and SIPs. Therefore, repealing the State rule will not impact continuity of the transportation conformity program in Alabama.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the ADEM. Regulation chapter 335-3-17.01 entitled “Transportation Conformity,” effective May 28, 2013, which incorporates by reference the Federal Transportation Conformity Rule that was restructured and amended on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14979). EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the revision to the Alabama SIP regarding the State's transportation conformity requirements. The approval of Alabama's conformity SIP revisions will align the Alabama SIP with the current federal conformity requirements, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and the most recent EPA regulations governing state procedures for transportation conformity.

    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 October 16, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 18, 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 October 16, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 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 October 16, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 4, 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 B—Alabama 2. Section 52.50(c) is amended by revising the entry for “Section 335-3-17-.01” to read as follows:
    § 52.50 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Alabama Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter No. 335-3-17 Conformity of Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans Section 335-3-17-.01 Transportation Conformity 5/28/2013 8/17/2017 [Insert citation of publication] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2017-17241 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 372 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0197; FRL-9964-77] RIN 2070-AK32 Community Right-To-Know; Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is updating the list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes subject to reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to reflect the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2017 NAICS code revision. As a result of this action, facilities would be required to use 2017 NAICS codes when reporting to TRI beginning with TRI reporting forms that are due on July 1, 2018, covering releases and other waste management quantities for the 2017 calendar year. EPA is also modifying the list of exceptions and limitations associated with NAICS codes in the CFR for TRI reporting purposes by deleting the descriptive text. EPA believes that these amendments are non-controversial and does not expect to receive any adverse comments. However, in addition to this direct final rule, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is issuing the same amendment as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will be used in the event that adverse comment is received. If EPA receives no adverse comment, the Agency will not take further action on the proposed rule and the direct final rule will become effective as provided in this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final action will not take effect and directing them to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. EPA would then address all relevant adverse public comments in a subsequent final rule.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 15, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 18, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect and directing them to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0197, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Stephanie Griffin, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division, Mailcode 7410M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-1463; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Information Center; telephone number: (800) 424-9346, TDD (800) 553-7672; Web site: https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you own or operate facilities that have 10 or more full-time employees or the equivalent of 20,000 employee hours per year that manufacture, process, or otherwise use toxic chemicals listed on the TRI, and that are required under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) or section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) to report annually to EPA and States or Tribes their environmental releases or other waste management quantities of covered chemicals. (A rule was published on April 19, 2012 (77 FR 23409), requiring facilities located in Indian country to report to the appropriate tribal government official and EPA instead of to the state and EPA.)

    The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220, 512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*. (*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.)

    • Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (corresponds to SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems).

    • Federal facilities. Under Executive Order 13693 (80 FR 15871, March 25, 2015), all Federal facilities are required to comply with the provisions set forth in section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the PPA. On June 10, 2015, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued Instructions for Implementing Executive Order 13693, requiring federal agencies and contractors to comply with these laws regardless of NAICS code delineations (see 80 FR 34149, June 15, 2015).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is taking this action under sections 313(g)(1) and 328 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(g)(1) and 11048. In general, section 313 of EPCRA requires owners and operators of covered facilities in specified SIC codes that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above specified threshold levels to report certain facility specific information about such chemicals, including the annual releases and other waste management quantities. Section 313(g)(1) of EPCRA requires EPA to publish a uniform toxic chemical release form for these reporting purposes, and it also prescribes, in general terms, the types of information that must be submitted on the form. Congress also granted EPA broad rulemaking authority to allow the Agency to fully implement the statute. EPCRA section 328 states that: “The Administrator may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 11048.

    C. What action is the Agency taking?

    In response to OMB's revisions to the NAICS codes effective January 1, 2017, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 372 to include 2017 NAICS codes for TRI reporting. EPA is also modifying the list of exceptions and limitations of NAICS codes for TRI reporting purposes in the CFR.

    Under this action, TRI reporting requirements remain unchanged. However, due to the 2017 NAICS modifications, some facilities will need to modify their reported NAICS codes as outlined in the table below, which identifies only the revised TRI NAICS reporting codes and is not an exhaustive list of all NAICS reporting codes subject to EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607. A complete listing of all TRI covered facilities can be found in the regulations at 40 CFR 372.23.

    2012 NAICS
  • code
  • 2012 NAICS and U.S. description 2017 NAICS
  • code
  • 2017 NAICS and U.S. description
    333911 Pump and Pumping Equipment Manufacturing 333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing. 333913 Measuring and Dispensing Pump Manufacturing 335221 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing 335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing 335224 Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing 335228 Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing 512220 Integrated Record Production/Distribution 512250 Record Production and Distribution.
  • This merges both TRI-covered and non-TRI-covered NAICS codes. Only 512220 (Integrated Record Production/Distribution) was covered by TRI. TRI will note that only the “Integrated Record Production/Distribution” facilities under NAICS code 512250 are required to report.
  • 541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology.
  • This merges both TRI-covered and non-TRI-covered NAICS codes. Only 541712 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)) was covered by TRI. TRI will note that only the “Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)” facilities under NAICS code 541713 are required to report. TRI does not include all facilities classified under NAICS code 541712, and the same limitations will be extended to NAICS code 541713.
  • 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology).
  • TRI does not include all facilities classified under NAICS code 541712, and the same limitations will be extended to NAICS code 541715. TRI will specify which facilities under NAICS code 541715 are required to report.
  • 212231 Lead Ore and Zinc Ore Mining * 212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining. 212234 Copper Ore and Nickel Ore Mining * A conforming update is also being made to 40 CFR 372.38(h).

    Crosswalk tables between all 2012 NAICS codes and 2017 NAICS codes can be found on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.

    EPA is also modifying the list of exceptions and limitations of NAICS codes for TRI reporting purposes in the CFR. Because NAICS codes may cross-reference some SIC codes in both TRI-covered and non-covered TRI sectors, EPA has historically included descriptive text in 40 CFR part 372 to help indicate exceptions and limitations to TRI coverage for a specific NAICS code in line with the previous SIC code descriptors. However, NAICS codes are updated every five years, and these updates may require EPA to revise this text describing an exception or limitation to the scope of a particular NAICS code. Consequently, this descriptive text does not always align fully with SIC codes' full descriptions.

    For example, historically, 40 CFR part 372 would list NAICS code 323211 with the following exception: “Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in reproducing text, drawings, plans, maps, or other copy, by blueprinting, photocopying, mimeographing, or other methods of duplication other than printing or microfilming (i.e., instant printing) (previously classified under SIC 7334, Photocopying and Duplicating Services, (instant printing))”. This action simplifies the listing to display only the SIC code and title rather than include the description: “Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7334, Photocopying and Duplicating Services”.

    Moving forward, in 40 CFR part 372, EPA will not include descriptive text for SIC codes when listing the limitations and exceptions applicable to TRI-covered NAICS codes. Instead, the Agency will simply list the SIC codes, including their titles, as applicable limitations and exceptions. Because exceptions and limitations are included in 40 CFR part 372.23(b) & (c) to align the listing of NAICS codes with the list of SIC codes covered by TRI reporting requirements as shown in 40 CFR part 372.23(a), the SIC codes rather than the descriptive text defines the types of facilities covered by TRI. By removing the descriptive text from the exceptions and limitations listed in these two paragraphs, this action mitigates potential confusion caused by qualitative descriptions of SIC codes and does not alter the universe of the facilities affected by TRI reporting requirements. Facilities with questions regarding the SIC code descriptions should refer to the SIC manual, available at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html.

    D. Why is EPA taking this action?

    On April 9, 1997, OMB published a Federal Register Notice of final decision (62 FR 17288) to adopt the NAICS economic classification system, replacing the SIC system which had traditionally been used by the Federal Government for collecting and organizing industry-related statistics. Consistent with EPCRA, on June 6, 2006, EPA amended 40 CFR part 372 to include the 2002 NAICS codes that correspond to the SIC codes that are currently subject to section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the PPA (71 FR 32464). OMB revises the NAICS codes every five years. Therefore, on June 9, 2008 (73 FR 32466), EPA amended 40 CFR part 372 to include the 2007 NAICS codes that correspond to the SIC codes that are currently subject to section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the PPA, and again on July 18, 2013 (78 FR 42875), to include the 2012 NAICS codes.

    In the Federal Register on August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46480), OMB announced updated NAICS codes for 2017, and on August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52584), finalized and further modified the NAICS codes for 2017. This direct final action will amend 40 CFR part 372 to include OMB's revised NAICS codes for 2017.

    E. How is EPA taking this action?

    Given the nature of this action, EPA is therefore taking this action by publishing this direct final rule and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

    1. Direct final rule. Although EPA believes that this action is non-controversial and is not expected to result in any adverse comments, a direct final rule provides an opportunity for adverse comment. If EPA receives no adverse comment, the Agency will not take further action on the proposed rule and the direct final rule will become effective as provided in this action. However, if EPA receives relevant adverse comment, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final action will not take effect and directing them to the proposed rule that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. EPA would then address all adverse public comments in the context of issuing a subsequent final rule.

    2. Proposed rule. In addition to this direct final rule, the same amendments are presented in a proposed rule that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. As indicated previously, the proposed rule will be used in the event that relevant adverse comment is received on the amendment within this direct final rule.

    F. What are the incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA analyzed the potential costs and benefits associated with this action, and determined that since this action will not add or remove any reporting requirements, there is no net increase in respondent burden or other economic impacts to consider.

    G. How do I submit a comment on this action?

    Submit your relevant adverse comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0197, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Facilities that are affected by the rule are already required to report their industrial classification codes on the approved reporting forms under section 313 of EPCRA and 6607 of the PPA. In addition, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 372 under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2025-0009 (EPA ICR No. 1363-21) for Form R and Form A. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This direct final rule adds no new reporting requirements, and there would be no net increase in respondent burden. This rule would only update the NAICS codes already reported by respondents. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action would impose no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

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

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: August 7, 2017, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 372—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

    2. Amend §  372.22 by revising the introductory text for paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    §  372.22 Covered facilities for toxic chemical release reporting.

    (b) The facility is in a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) (as in effect on January 1, 1987) major group or industry code listed in §  372.23(a), for which the corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (as in effect on January 1, 2017, for reporting year 2018 and thereafter) subsector and industry codes are listed in §  372.23(b) and (c) by virtue of the fact that it meets one of the following criteria:

    3. Amend §  372.23 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    §  372.23 SIC and NAICS codes to which this Part applies.

    (b) NAICS codes that correspond to SIC codes 20 through 39.

    Subsector code or
  • industry code
  • Exceptions and/or limitations
    311—Food Manufacturing Except 311119—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 0723, Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning; Except 311340—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5441, Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores; Except 311352—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5441, Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores; Except 311611—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 0751, Livestock Services, Except Veterinary; Except 311612—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5147, Meats and Meat Products; Except 311811— Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5461, Retail Bakeries; 312—Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing Except 312112—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5149, Groceries and Related Products, Not Elsewhere Classified; Except 312230—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, except facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis; 313—Textile Mills Except 313310—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5131, Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Good; and facilities previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, except facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis; 314—Textile Product Mills Except 314120—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5714, Drapery, Curtain, and Upholstery Stores; Except 314999—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, except facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis; 315—Apparel Manufacturing Except 315220—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5699, Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores; 316—Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 321—Wood Product Manufacturing 322—Paper Manufacturing 323—Printing and Related Support Activities Except 323111—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7334, Photocopying and Duplicating Services; 324—Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 325—Chemical Manufacturing Except 325998—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified; 326—Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing Except 326212—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7534, Tire Retreading and Repair Shops; 327—Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing Except 327110—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5719, Miscellaneous home furnishing Stores; 331—Primary Metal Manufacturing 332—Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 333—Machinery Manufacturing 334—Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing Except 334614—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7372, Prepackaged Software; and to facilities previously classified under SIC 7819, Services Allied to Motion Picture Production; 335—Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing Except 335312—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 7694, Armature Rewinding Shops; 336—Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 337—Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing Except 337110—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores; Except 337121—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores; Except 337122—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores; 339—Miscellaneous Manufacturing Except 339113—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 5999, Miscellaneous Retail Stores, Not Elsewhere Classified; Except 339115—Exception is limited to lens grinding facilities previously classified under SIC 5995, Optical Goods Stores; Except 339116—Exception is limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 8072, Dental Laboratories; 111998—All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 2099, Food Preparations, Not Elsewhere Classified; 113310—Logging 211112—Natural Gas Liquid Extraction Limited to facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas and previously classified under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified; 212324—Kaolin and Ball Clay Mining Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated; 212325—Mining Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated; 212393—Other Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated; 212399—All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated; 488390—Other Support Activities for Water Transportation Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3731, Shipbuilding and Repairing; 511110—Newspaper Publishers 511120—Periodical Publishers 511130—Book Publishers 511140—Directory and Mailing List Publishers Except facilities previously classified under SIC 7331, Direct Mail Advertising Services; 511191—Greeting Card Publishers 511199—All Other Publishers 512230—Music Publishers Except facilities previously classified under SIC 8999, Services, Not Elsewhere Classified; 512250—Record Production and Distribution Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3652, Phonograph Records and Prerecorded Audio Tapes and Disks; 519130—Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals Limited to Internet publishing facilities previously classified under SIC 2711, Newspapers: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing; facilities previously classified under SIC 2721, Periodicals: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing; facilities previously classified under SIC 2731, Books: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing; facilities previously classified under SIC 2741, Miscellaneous Publishing; facilities previously classified under SIC 2771, Greeting Cards; Except for facilities primarily engaged in web search portals; 541713—Research and Development in Nanotechnology Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3764, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Units and Propulsion Unit Parts; and facilities previously classified under SIC 3769, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified; 541715—Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3764, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Units and Propulsion Unit Parts; and facilities previously classified under SIC 3769, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified; 811490—Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 3732, Boat Building and Repairing.

    (c) NAICS codes that correspond to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39.

    Subsector or industry code Exceptions and/or limitations 212111—Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining 212112—Bituminous Coal and Underground Mining 212113—Anthracite Mining 212221—Gold Ore Mining 212222—Silver Ore Mining 212230—Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining 212299—Other Metal Ore Mining 221111—Hydroelectric Power Generation Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221112—Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221113—Nuclear Electric Power Generation Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221118—Other Electric Power Generation Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221121—Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221122—Electric Power Distribution Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221330—Steam and Air Conditioning Supply Limited to facilities previously classified under SIC 4939, Combination Utility Services, Not Elsewhere Classified. 424690—Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 424710—Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 425110—Business to Business Electronic Markets Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified 425120—Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified. 562112—Hazardous Waste Collection Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis and previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified; 562211—Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562212—Solid Waste Landfill Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562213—Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562219—Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562920—Materials Recovery Facilities Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
    4. Amend §  372.38 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    §  372.38 Exemptions.

    (h) Metal mining overburden. If a toxic chemical that is a constituent of overburden is processed or otherwise used by facilities in SIC code 10, or in NAICS codes 212221, 212222, 212230 or 212299, a person is not required to consider the quantity of the toxic chemical so processed, or otherwise used when determining whether an applicable threshold has been met under § 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28, or determining the amounts to be reported under § 372.30.

    [FR Doc. 2017-17413 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 216 [Docket No. 170303228-7752-02] RIN 0648-BG71 Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands; Final Annual Subsistence Harvest Levels for 2017-2019 AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Final annual fur seal subsistence harvest levels.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the regulations governing the subsistence taking of North Pacific fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) (northern fur seals), NMFS is publishing the expected harvest levels from 2017-2019 on St. George and St. Paul Islands, Alaska (the Pribilof Islands) to satisfy subsistence requirements of the Alaska Natives residing on the Pribilof Islands (Pribilovians). NMFS is establishing the 2017-2019 harvest levels at 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George Island.

    DATES:

    Effective September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Two Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), one Draft EIS, annual subsistence harvest reports, and other references are available on the Internet at the following address: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska Region, 907-271-5117, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seals (fur seals) is considered depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq. The subsistence harvest from this stock on the Pribilof Islands is governed by regulations found in 50 CFR part 216, subpart F, published under the authority of the Fur Seal Act (FSA), 16 U.S.C. 1151, et seq. Pursuant to 50 CFR 216.72(b), every three years NMFS must publish in the Federal Register a summary of the Pribilovians' fur seal harvest for the previous three-year period. NMFS is also required to include an estimate of the number of fur seals expected to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians in the subsequent three-year period. After a 30-day comment period, NMFS must publish a final notification of the expected annual harvest levels for the next three years.

    On May 18, 2017 (82 FR 22797), NMFS published the summary of the 2014-2016 fur seal harvests and provided a 30-day comment period on the estimates of the number of fur seals expected to be taken annually to satisfy the subsistence requirements of the Pribilovians of each island for 2017-2019. In that notice, NMFS estimated the annual subsistence needs for 2017-2019 would be 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George Island and provided background information related to these estimates.

    Summary of Changes From Proposed Annual Harvest Estimates

    NMFS did not make any changes from the proposed notice of annual harvest levels. The harvest levels for each island remain the same and therefore the annual harvest levels remain 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George Island.

    Comments and Response

    NMFS received nine distinct comments from four parties on the notice of the 2017-2019 proposed annual harvest estimates (82 FR 22797; May 18, 2017). A summary of the comments received and NMFS's responses follows.

    Comment 1: In an effort to stabilize the ecosystems, only indigenous people should be allowed to take part in these kills and every effort should be made to establish a line of communication with indigenous leaders regarding concerns of human influence and its effects on the ecosystem. Removing fur seals could result in an increase in lower trophic levels and a decrease in higher trophic levels.

    Response 1: Pursuant to the Fur Seal Act, 16 U.S.C. 1152, “it is unlawful, except as provided in the chapter or by regulation of the Secretary, for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in the taking of fur seals in the North Pacific Ocean or on lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the United States . . .” Regulations issued under the authority of the Fur Seal Act authorize Pribilovians to take fur seals on the Pribilof Islands if such taking is for subsistence uses and not accomplished in a wasteful manner (50 CFR 216.71). NMFS works in partnership with the Pribilovians under co-management agreements pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act to discuss human influences on the ecosystem and issues of concern for the northern fur seal population on the Pribilof Islands in particular. NMFS prepared an Environmental Impact Statement for Setting the Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur Seals (NMFS 2005), which analyzed the effects of the subsistence harvest of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. That analysis indicated that trophic level changes were not expected to occur, and NMFS has not observed trophic level changes resulting from the harvests in the intervening years. NMFS recently prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur Seals on St. George, (NMFS 2014) and a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur Seals on St. Paul (NMFS 2017). Both analyses indicate that trophic level changes still are not expected to occur.

    Comment 2: The currently authorized harvest is higher than is justifiable given that actual harvest numbers have been lower than authorized harvest levels since 1985 and given the continued decline in fur seal pup production.

    Response 2: NMFS disagrees. NMFS authorizes the harvest levels in order to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Alaska Natives on each island. NMFS evaluated the complexities of establishing an annual subsistence requirement in the EIS for the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands (NMFS 2005). The estimates of the number of seals expected to be taken annually over the next three years to satisfy the subsistence requirement reflects a combination of nutritional (food security), social, and cultural needs. The actual amount harvested in a given year may be less than the subsistence requirement and is dependent upon the seasonal availability of fur seals and other food resources as well as other factors such as environmental variability and the availability of harvesters. Through the co-management process NMFS and the Tribal governments have discussed the estimation of subsistence requirements and importance to community members to ensure the subsistence harvest levels are sufficient to account for environmental changes and changing needs of the Pribilovians.

    NMFS arrived at the authorized harvest level of 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George Island after considering these factors, consulting with Tribal representatives, and reviewing information in the environmental analyses which indicated that harvests up to this level will not have significant consequences for the fur seal population (NMFS 2005, 2014, and 2017). While NMFS acknowledges a decline in pup production, NMFS explained in the proposed notice that fur seal reproduction depends disproportionately on females. Consequently, the subsistence harvest of fur seals is limited to males that have not reached adulthood. Further, harvest at the maximum allowable level on St. George and St. Paul Islands would amount to 21.2 percent of the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level (i.e., 21.2 percent of the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from the stock while allowing the stock to reach or maintain the optimum sustainable population level). However, PBR assumes random mortality across all ages and both sexes. Because the subsistence harvest is regulated to select only sub-adult male fur seals (including pups on St. George) the population-level effect of the subsistence harvest on the stock is lower than 21.2 percent of PBR.

    Comment 3: The Pribilovians have managed to feed themselves and increase their own local population for over 30 years without the need of killing thousands of fur seals annually.

    Response 3: NMFS disagrees that the local populations on St. Paul and St. George have increased over the past 30 years. Both the Alaska Native population and total population on St. Paul and St. George are smaller today than 30 years ago (NMFS 2017). In recent years fur seal harvests on both islands have been lower than the allowable harvest levels NMFS is identifying here (1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George Island). As noted above in response to Comment 2, the actual amount harvested may be less than the full subsistence requirement due to factors such as environmental variability, availability of fur seals and other food resources, and the availability of harvesters.

    Comment 4: NMFS should cap the harvest levels at the highest number killed in the most recent five year period.

    Response 4: This comment is beyond the scope of this action. NMFS has developed the proposed and final notice pursuant to current regulations at 50 CFR 216.72(b). These regulations dictate that NMFS provide a summary of the preceding three years of harvesting and a discussion of the number of seals expected to be taken annually over the next three years to satisfy the subsistence requirements of St. George and St. Paul Islands. Through this notice NMFS is neither proposing nor seeking comment on alternative ways to set harvest caps.

    Comment 5: NMFS should refrain from relying on the PBR level as the basis for its conclusion that the proposed harvest levels will not have adverse effects on the Eastern North Pacific Stock of fur seals. Instead NMFS should be using an approach that assesses the impact of losses to the population from subsistence harvests in addition to the population decline that already is occurring and that may continue to occur.

    Response 5: NMFS disagrees. Evaluating harvest levels relative to PBR is a valuable means to use the best available scientific information to evaluate the consequences of human caused mortality. As stated in response to Comment 2, harvest at the maximum allowable level on St. George and St. Paul Islands would amount to 21.2 of the PBR, and PBR assumes random mortality across all ages and both sexes. Because the subsistence harvest is regulated to select only sub-adult male fur seals (including pups on St. George) the population-level effects of the subsistence harvest on the stock is lower than 21.2 percent of PBR.

    In addition, NMFS has modeled and analyzed the population consequences of various harvest levels and age and sex restrictions on the harvest using alternative methods besides PBR, and has come to a similar determination: That the harvests of non-breeding male fur seals at the upper limit defined do not measurably effect the abundance or reproductive potential of the fur seal population, even in light of the observed decline in the population (NMFS 2005, 2014). Analysis provided in the 2017 draft SEIS on population consequences of various harvest levels and age and sex restrictions for St. Paul Island is also consistent with those conclusions.

    Comment 6: NMFS should provide a more rigorous analysis of subsistence needs, including a discussion of (1) why NMFS believes that those needs are more than five times higher than the average number of seals harvested per year on St. Paul over the past 15 years, (2) whether St. Paul residents have been foregoing the opportunity to stockpile meat during the harvest season for use later in the year and, if so, why this might be the case, and (3) how any shortfalls in the availability of seal meat may have been offset by greater reliance on other subsistence species (i.e., are data available that show corresponding trends in these other harvests?).

    Response 6: As indicated in response to Comment 2, NMFS, in consultation with the Tribal governments, considers recent harvest levels and nutritional (food security), social, and cultural needs when developing estimates of the number of fur seals expected to be taken annually to satisfy the Pribilovians' subsistence requirements over the next three years. During co-management meetings between NMFS and the Tribal governments, the Pribilovians conveyed that sudden, unanticipated, and prolonged environmental and/or socioeconomic changes may alter the annual subsistence requirements. As a result, the Pribilovian communities need flexibility built into the estimate of the number of fur seals expected to satisfy their subsistence requirements. The estimated number of seals expected to satisfy the subsistence requirements must be higher than the average number of seals harvested annually in recent years in order to ensure the Pribilovians' subsistence requirements are satisfied annually over the next three years.

    Pribilovians forego opportunities to stockpile fur seal meat during the harvest season due to practical limitations and costs of freezer space, limited availability of volunteer harvesters due to competition with wage-earning jobs, and competition for available labor from the local halibut fishery. The Pribilovians have repeatedly indicated that seal meat is not interchangeable or replaceable with other meat. No other marine mammals are available in the same manner on the Pribilof Islands. Steller sea lion and harbor seal hunting primarily occurs during the winter and spring in the nearshore waters of the Pribilof Islands when few if any fur seals are present, and the harvest levels are modest due to limited availability. Approximately 20 Steller sea lions were successfully retrieved each year on St. Paul over the past five years (Aleut Community of St. Paul Island unpublished data), and changes in any one year most likely represent a natural change in availability rather than the ability to substitute for the fur seal harvest by increasing hunting effort for sea lions.

    There are no data available to evaluate how changes in availability of one subsistence resource may be offset by another, and the Pribilovians have indicated that subsistence resources are not inter-changeable or replaceable. Pribilovians rely on fur seals to provide a significant portion of their annual meat requirement. In addition, as indicated in the response to Comment 2, the fur seal harvest provides a cultural sharing opportunity to connect the community with their environment and history. Even when fewer seals are harvested, the cultural component is important. Shortfalls of meat based on their availability can be offset, but not replaced, by greater use of store-bought or other subsistence resources. Both Pribilof communities regularly experience a lack of diversity and availability of store-bought and wild foods. The price and availability of store-bought and wild food on the Pribilof Islands can undermine food security and impact estimates of the number of fur seals necessary to meet the subsistence requirements of the Pribilovians. Further, community members must regularly choose between spending time pursuing subsistence resources to maintain cultural practices and food security versus spending time in wage-earning jobs to purchase store-bought foods and other necessities.

    Comment 7: Harvest levels proposed for St. George are higher than the actual harvest reported since the regulatory change in 2014. The recent regulatory revisions to authorize the subsistence harvest of both sub-adult males and pups on St. George may have changed harvest patterns and the yield of meat per seal. As such, NMFS should provide a more rigorous analysis of the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians residing on St. George.

    Response 7: NMFS interprets this comment as requesting that we analyze the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians residing on St. George by analyzing the yield of meat per fur seal pup and sub-adult. Analyzing the yield of meat per fur seal pup and sub-adult would not provide an accurate estimate of the number of seals expected to be taken annually over the next three years to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians on St. George. Meat is not the only edible subsistence resource obtained from fur seals. Seal oil, tongues, kidneys, and fermented seal flippers are highly valued subsistence resources which are not accurately reflected by measurements of edible meat.

    In addition, previous efforts by NMFS to quantify the yield of meat per seal (58 FR 42027, August 6, 1993) created significant delays in the harvest process on St. Paul Island. This was largely a function of scientists and managers having to weigh and measure people's food multiple times on the killing field. The additional handling ultimately extended the duration of the harvest, extended the time that seals were held in groups on the harvest grounds prior to stunning, and required harvesters to volunteer for longer periods.

    Comment 8: To the extent Native subsistence taking of northern fur seals is permitted, taking of fur seals for other than subsistence purposes should not be permitted.

    Response 8: NMFS agrees. As noted in response to Comment 1 above, the Fur Seal Act and its implementing regulations restrict the take of fur seals to take for subsistence uses and not accomplished in a wasteful manner.

    Comment 9: Pribilovians of St. Paul Island recently requested a revision of the harvest regulation to authorize, among other things, a longer harvest season, the use of firearms to harvest fur seals, the shooting of fur seals in the water, and the targeting of young animals that are not yet sexually dimorphic. The combined effect of the proposed revision in harvest guidelines appears likely to result in a dramatic increase in the number of animals killed each year such that close to 2000 fur seals could be killed annually. We support the “No Action” alternative that was presented in the notice of availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and opportunity for public comment published in 83 FR 4337, January 13, 2017.

    Response 9: This comment is beyond the scope of this action. NMFS will solicit comments separately on any proposal to revise the harvest regulations for St. Paul Island.

    Classification National Environmental Policy Act

    NMFS prepared an EIS evaluating the impacts on the human environment of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals, which is available on the NMFS Web site (see ADDRESSES). A draft EIS was available for public review (69 FR 53915; September 3, 2004), and NMFS incorporated the comments into the final EIS (May 2005). A draft SEIS was prepared regarding the management of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals on St. George Island, made available for public review (79 FR 31110; May 30, 2014), and NMFS incorporated the public comments into the final SEIS (79 FR 49774; August 22, 2014). A draft SEIS was prepared regarding the management of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals on St. Paul Island, made available for public review (82 FR 4336; January 13, 2017), and NMFS is reviewing those public comments separately from the action considered here. An SEIS should be prepared if (1) the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (2) significant new circumstances or information exist relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). After reviewing the information contained in the 2005 EIS and 2014 SEIS, the Regional Administrator has determined that (1) approval of the proposed 2017-2019 fur seal subsistence harvest notice does not constitute a change in the action; and (2) there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. Additionally, the proposed 2017-2019 fur seal subsistence harvest levels will result in environmental impacts within the scope of those analyzed and disclosed in the previous EIS. Therefore, supplemental NEPA documentation is not necessary to implement the 2017-2019 fur seal subsistence harvest levels discussed in this document.

    Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    This proposed action is authorized under 50 CFR 216.72(b) and is not significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the proposed action stage that it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The harvest of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is for subsistence purposes only, and the estimate of subsistence need would not have an adverse economic impact on any small entities. Background information related to the certification was included in the proposed estimates published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2017 (82 FR 22797). We received no comments on this certification and are not aware of anything that would change the conclusion of the certification; therefore a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this action, and none has been prepared.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    This action does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132 because this action does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nonetheless, NMFS worked closely with local governments in the Pribilof Islands, and these estimates of subsistence use and need were prepared by the local governments in St. Paul and St. George, with assistance from NMFS officials.

    Executive Order 13175—Native Consultation

    Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 Note), the executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the American Indian Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce (March 30, 1995), the Department of Commerce's Tribal Consultation Policy (including the Department of Commerce Administrative Order 218-8, April 26, 2012), and the NOAA Procedures for Government-to-Government Consultation With Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (November 12, 2013) outline the responsibilities of NMFS in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-100 (188 Stat. 452) as amended by section 518 of Public Law 108-447 (118 Stat. 3267) extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native corporations. NMFS contacted the tribal governments of St. Paul and St. George Islands and their respective local Native corporations (Tanadgusix and Tanaq) about setting the next three years' subsistence requirements and considered their input in formulating the proposed action. NMFS notified the tribal governments and Native corporations when the proposed action published in the Federal Register for a 30-day comment period (82 FR 22797, May 18, 2017); no comments were received.

    Executive Order 13175—Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    Dated: August 11, 2017. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17379 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150121066-5717-02] RIN 0648-XF615 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure of the coastwide General category fishery.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS closes the coastwide General category fishery for large medium and giant (i.e., measuring 73 inches curved fork length or greater) Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) until the General category reopens on September 1, 2017. This action is being taken to prevent further overharvest of the General category June through August subquota and help ensure the fishery continues to the end of the calendar year.

    DATES:

    Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, August 16, 2017, through August 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006) and amendments.

    NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.

    The base quota for the General category is 466.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a “subquota” or portion of the annual General category quota. Although it is called the “January” subquota, the regulations allow the General category fishery under this quota to continue until the subquota is reached or March 31, whichever comes first. The subquotas for each time period are as follows: 24.7 mt for January; 233.3 mt for June through August; 123.7 mt for September; 60.7 mt for October through November; and 24.3 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward within the fishing year, which coincides with the calendar year, from one time period to the next, and is available for use in subsequent time periods. On December 19, 2016, NMFS published an inseason action transferring 16.3 mt of BFT quota from the December 2017 subquota to the January 2017 subquota period (81 FR 91873). For 2017, NMFS also transferred 40 mt from the Reserve to the General category effective March 2, resulting in an adjusted General category quota of 506.7 mt (82 FR 12747, March 7, 2017).

    Based on the best available landings information for the General category BFT fishery, NMFS has determined that the General category June through August 2017 subquota of 233.3 mt has been reached (i.e., as of August 10, reported landings are approximately 259.0 mt). Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas General and HMS Charter/Headboat categories (while fishing commercially) must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on August 16, 2017. The General category will reopen automatically on September 1, 2017, for the September 2017 subperiod and there is additional quota available for October through December. This action applies to Atlantic tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels when fishing commercially for BFT, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1). The intent of this closure is to prevent any further overharvest of the available General category June through August BFT subquota and help ensure the fishery continues to the end of the calendar year.

    Fishermen may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. General, HMS Charter/Headboat, Harpoon, and Angling category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the Android or iPhone app.

    Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

    The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. These fisheries are currently underway and the quota for the subcategory has already been exceeded. Delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest because the subquota has already been exceeded and any delay could lead to further exceedance, which may result in the need to reduce quota for the General category later in the year and thus could affect later fishing opportunities. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there also is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

    This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.28(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 11, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17388 Filed 8-14-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 158 Thursday, August 17, 2017 Proposed Rules FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Parts 211 and 238 [Docket No. R-1569] RIN 7100-AE82 Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LL AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board is seeking comment on a proposed new rating system for its supervision of large financial institutions. The proposed “Large Financial Institution Rating System” is closely aligned with the Federal Reserve's new supervisory program for large financial institutions. The proposed rating system would apply to all bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; all non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations established pursuant to the Federal Reserve's Regulation YY. The proposed rating system includes a new rating scale under which component ratings would be assigned for capital planning and positions, liquidity risk management and positions, and governance and controls; however, a standalone composite rating would not be assigned. The Federal Reserve proposes to assign initial ratings under the new rating system during 2018. The Federal Reserve is also seeking comment on proposed revisions to existing provisions in Regulations K and LL so they would remain consistent with certain features of the proposed rating system.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than October 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by following the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Naylor, Associate Director, (202) 728-5854, Vaishali Sack, Manager, (202) 452-5221, April Snyder, Manager, (202) 452-3099, Bill Charwat, Senior Project Manager, (202) 452-3006, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Scott Tkacz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2744, or Christopher Callanan, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3594, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202-263-4869).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Overview of the Proposed LFI Rating System A. LFI Rating Components B. LFI Rating Scale III. Transition from the RFI Rating System to the LFI Rating System IV. Consequences of LFI Ratings V. Applicability VI. Timing and Implementation VII. Related Proposed Guidance A. Management of Core Business Lines and Independent Risk Management and Controls 1. Senior Management 2. Management of Core Business Lines 3. Independent Risk Management and Controls B. Board Effectiveness VIII. Other Related Developments IX. Proposed Changes to Existing Regulations X. Comparison of the RFI and LFI Rating Systems XI. Request for Comments XII. Regulatory Analysis A. Paperwork Reduction Act B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis C. Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language Appendix A. Text of Proposed Large Financial Institution Rating System I. Background

    The 2007-2009 financial crisis demonstrated the risks that large financial institutions (LFIs) pose to U.S. financial stability. As a group, these institutions were overleveraged, had insufficient capital to support their risks, and relied heavily on short-term wholesale funding that was susceptible to runs. This excessive risk-taking, combined with similar behavior outside the regulated financial sector, left the U.S. economy vulnerable. The ensuing financial crisis led to a deep recession and the loss of nearly nine million jobs.

    In response, since the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has placed materially heightened supervisory expectations on LFIs. The Federal Reserve has developed a supervisory program specifically designed to address the risks posed by such firms to U.S. financial stability. The Federal Reserve established the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee (LISCC) in 2010 to coordinate its supervisory oversight for the systemically important firms that pose the greatest risk to U.S. financial stability.1 The LISCC supervisory program conducts annual horizontal reviews of LISCC firms and firm-specific examination work focused on evaluating a firm's (i) capital adequacy under normal and stressed conditions; (ii) liquidity positions and risk management practices; (iii) recovery and resolution preparedness; and (iv) governance and controls. For LFIs that are not LISCC firms, the Federal Reserve performs horizontal reviews and firm-specific supervisory work focused on capital, liquidity, and governance and control practices, which are tailored to reflect the risk characteristics of these institutions.2

    1See the list of firms included in the LISCC supervisory program at https://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/large-institution-supervision.htm.

    2 Several LFIs which are not LISCC firms are subject to the Federal Reserve's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR).

    In 2012, the Federal Reserve implemented a new consolidated supervisory program for LFIs (referred to as the “LFI supervision framework”) described in SR letter 12-17.3 The LFI supervision framework is intended to (i) enhance each LFI's financial and operational strength and resilience to reduce the likelihood of an LFI's failure or material financial or operational distress, and (ii) reduce the risk to U.S. financial stability overall if an LFI were to fail.4

    3See SR letter 12-17/CA letter 12-14, “Consolidated Supervision Framework for Large Financial Institutions,” (referred to as “SR letter 12-17” in this notice) at http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/srletters/sr1217.htm.

    4 “Financial strength and resilience” is defined as maintaining effective capital and liquidity governance and planning processes, and sufficiency of related positions, to provide for continuity of the consolidated organization and its core business lines, critical operations, and banking offices through a range of conditions.

    “Operational strength and resilience” is defined as maintaining effective governance and controls to provide for continuity of the consolidated organization and its core business lines, critical operations, and banking offices, and promote compliance with laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection, through a range of conditions.

    “Critical operations” are a firm's operations, including associated services, functions and support, the failure or discontinuance of which, in the view of the firm or the Federal Reserve would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.

    Under SR letter 12-17, “banking offices” are defined as U.S. depository institution subsidiaries and the U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations (FBOs). The Federal Reserve expects to use the LFI rating system to inform future revisions to other supervisory rating systems used to assess the U.S. operations of FBOs.

    The LFI supervision framework includes heightened expectations regarding capital and liquidity, including both the amount of capital and liquidity and the related planning and risk management practices. The LFI supervision framework also outlined expectations for a firm's maintenance of operational strength and resilience and its compliance with laws and regulations, as provided by effective governance and control practices.

    The Federal Reserve has not modified its supervisory rating system for bank holding companies since the 2007-2009 financial crisis. Since 2004, the Federal Reserve has used the “RFI/C(D)” rating system (referred to as the “RFI rating system”) to communicate its supervisory assessment of every bank holding company (BHC) regardless of its asset size, complexity, or systemic importance.5 The RFI rating system focuses on the risk management practices (R component) and financial condition (F component) of the consolidated organization, and assesses the potential impact (I component) of a BHC's nondepository entities on its subsidiary depository institution(s).

    5See SR letter 04-18, “Bank Holding Company Rating System,” 69 FR 70444 (December 6, 2004), at https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/2004/sr0418.htm.

    The Federal Reserve has only applied the RFI rating system to saving and loan holding companies (SLHCs) on an indicative basis since assuming supervisory responsibility for those firms from the Office of Thrift Supervision in 2011. The Federal Reserve has proposed to apply the RFI rating system to SLHCs on a fully implemented basis, excluding SLHCs engaged in significant insurance or commercial activities. See 81 FR 89941 (December 13, 2016).

    Given the systemic risks posed by LFIs and the corresponding changes to the Federal Reserve's supervisory expectations and oversight of those firms, the Federal Reserve believes that a new rating system would be more effective than the RFI rating system for evaluating LFIs. The RFI rating system remains a relevant and effective tool for developing and communicating supervisory assessments for community and regional holding companies. Therefore, the RFI rating system will continue to be used in the supervision of these organizations.

    II. Overview of the Proposed LFI Rating System

    The proposed LFI rating system provides a supervisory evaluation of whether a firm possesses sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe and sound operations through a range of conditions. The proposed LFI rating system is designed to:

    • Fully align with the Federal Reserve's current supervisory programs and practices, which are based upon the LFI supervision framework's core objectives of reducing the probability of LFIs failing or experiencing material distress and reducing the risk to U.S. financial stability;

    • Enhance the clarity and consistency of supervisory assessments and communications of supervisory findings and implications; and

    • Provide appropriate incentives for LFIs to maintain financial and operational strength and resilience, including compliance with laws and regulations, by more clearly defining the supervisory consequences of a given rating.

    A. LFI Rating Components

    Under the proposed LFI rating system, the Federal Reserve would evaluate and assign ratings for the following three components: 6

    6 The proposed LFI rating system does not include subcomponent ratings.

    • Capital Planning and Positions

    • Liquidity Risk Management and Positions

    • Governance and Controls

    The Capital Planning and Positions component rating would encompass assessments of (i) the effectiveness of the governance and planning processes used by a firm to determine the amount of capital necessary to cover risks and exposures, and to support activities through a range of conditions; and (ii) the sufficiency of a firm's capital positions to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and to support the firm's ability to continue to serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions. Findings from CCAR for LISCC firms and certain other large and complex LFIs,7 and from similar supervisory activities for other LFIs,8 represent a material portion of the work that would be conducted to determine the Capital Planning and Positions component rating.

    7See SR letter 15-18, “Federal Reserve Supervisory Assessment of Capital Planning and Positions for LISCC Firms and Large and Complex Firms,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1518.htm.

    Under SR letter 15-18, a “large and complex firm” is defined as any domestic BHC or intermediate holding company (IHC) that is not a LISCC firm and that has total consolidated assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more.

    8See SR letter 15-19, “Federal Reserve Supervisory Assessment of Capital Planning and Positions for Large and Noncomplex Firms,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1519.htm.

    The Liquidity Risk Management and Positions component rating would encompass assessments of (i) the effectiveness of a firm's governance and risk management processes used to determine the amount of liquidity necessary to cover risks and exposures, and to support activities through a range of conditions; and (ii) the sufficiency of a firm's liquidity positions to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and to support the firm's ongoing obligations through a range of conditions.9 The Liquidity Risk Management and Positions component rating would be based on findings of coordinated examinations of liquidity positions and risk management practices conducted across several firms (horizontal examinations), as well as ongoing assessments of an individual firm's liquidity positions and risk management practices conducted through the supervisory process.

    9 These requirements include the Board's Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) rule in Regulation WW and the liquidity risk management and stress testing requirements in Regulation YY. See 12 CFR part 249 and 12 CFR 252.34-35 and 252.156-157.

    Horizontal examinations help to ensure that the liquidity positions and risk management practices of firms with similar liquidity risk profiles are evaluated in a consistent manner. LISCC firms are subject to the Comprehensive Liquidity Analysis and Review (CLAR), which is an annual horizontal exercise that assesses both liquidity positions and risk management. Other LFI firms are subject to more narrow horizontal examinations depending on their risk profile. The Federal Reserve also conducts targeted examinations of specific areas that are of high risk to an individual firm or have not been covered by a recent horizontal examination.

    The Federal Reserve evaluates each firm's risk management practices by reviewing the processes that firms use to identify, measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk and make funding decisions. The Federal Reserve evaluates a firm's liquidity positions against applicable regulatory requirements, and assesses the firm's ability to support its obligations through other means, such as its funding concentrations.

    The Governance and Controls component rating would evaluate the effectiveness of a firm's (i) board of directors, (ii) management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls, and (iii) recovery planning (for domestic LISCC firms only).10 This rating would assess a firm's effectiveness in aligning strategic business objectives with the firm's risk tolerance 11 and risk management capabilities; maintaining strong, effective, and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit; promoting compliance with laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection; and otherwise providing for the ongoing resiliency of the firm. Firm-specific and horizontal examination work focused on a firm's corporate governance, independent risk management, controls, and lines of business, among other areas, would provide the basis for determining the Governance and Controls component rating.

    10 “Board” or “board of directors” also refers to committees of the board of directors, as appropriate.

    At this time, recovery planning expectations only apply to domestic BHCs subject to the Federal Reserve's LISCC supervisory framework. See SR letter 14-8, “Consolidated Recovery Planning for Certain Large Domestic Bank Holding Companies.” Should the Federal Reserve expand the scope of recovery planning expectations to encompass additional firms, this rating will reflect such expectations for the broader set of firms.

    There are eight domestic firms in the LISCC portfolio: (1) Bank of America Corporation; (2) Bank of New York Mellon Corporation; (3) Citigroup, Inc.; (4) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; (5) JP Morgan Chase & Co.; (6) Morgan Stanley; (7) State Street Corporation; and (8) Wells Fargo & Company. In this guidance, these eight firms may collectively be referred to as “domestic LISCC firms.”

    11 “Risk tolerance” is defined as the aggregate level and types of risk the board and senior management are willing to assume to achieve the firm's strategic business objectives, consistent with applicable capital, liquidity, and other requirements and constraints.

    Unlike other supervisory rating systems, including the RFI rating system, the Federal Reserve would not assign a standalone composite rating under the proposed LFI rating system. The Federal Reserve believes assigning a standalone composite rating is not necessary because the three proposed LFI component ratings are designed to clearly communicate supervisory assessments and associated consequences for each of the core areas (capital, liquidity, and governance and controls) considered critical to a firm's strength and resilience. It is unlikely that the assignment of a standalone composite rating would convey new or additional information regarding supervisory assessments, and a standalone composite rating could dilute the clarity and impact of the component ratings.

    B. LFI Rating Scale

    Each LFI component rating would be assigned using a multi-level scale (Satisfactory/Satisfactory Watch, Deficient-1, and Deficient-2). A “Satisfactory” rating indicates that the firm is considered safe and sound and broadly meets supervisory expectations.12 A “Satisfactory Watch” rating is a conditional “Satisfactory” rating, and is discussed in greater detail below. A “Deficient-1” rating indicates that although the firm's current condition is not considered to be materially threatened, there are financial and/or operational deficiencies that put its prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at significant risk. A “Deficient-2” rating indicates that financial and/or operational deficiencies materially threaten the firm's safety and soundness, or have already put the firm in an unsafe and unsound condition.

    12 References to “safe and sound” or “safety and soundness” in the proposed LFI rating system also refer to a firm's consolidated organization and its critical operations and banking offices.

    Supervisors may assign a “Satisfactory Watch” component rating which indicates that the firm is generally considered safe and sound; however certain issues are sufficiently material that, if not resolved in a timely manner in the normal course of business, would put the firm's prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at risk. This would be consistent with existing supervisory practice where supervisors generally indicate to a firm that a rating downgrade is a strong possibility if the firm fails to resolve identified weaknesses in a timely manner. The “Satisfactory Watch” rating may also be used for firms previously rated “Deficient” when circumstances warrant.

    In considering whether supervisory issues are likely to be resolved in the normal course of business, the Federal Reserve will assess the firm's ability to remediate or mitigate these issues (through compensating controls and/or a reduced risk profile) in a timely manner without material changes to, or investments in, a firm's governance, risk management or internal control structures, practices, or capabilities.

    A “Satisfactory Watch” rating is not intended to be used for a prolonged period. Firms that receive a “Satisfactory Watch” rating would have a specified timeframe to fully resolve issues leading to that rating (as is the case with all supervisory issues), generally no longer than 18 months.13 If the firm successfully resolved the issues leading to the “Satisfactory Watch” rating, the firm would typically be upgraded to “Satisfactory” as it has demonstrated an ability to successfully remediate or mitigate these issues in a timely manner in the normal course of business. However, if the firm failed to timely remediate or mitigate those issues, that failure would generally be viewed as evidence that the firm lacked sufficient financial and/or operational capabilities to remain safe and sound through a range of conditions. In these instances, the firm would typically be downgraded to a “Deficient” rating.

    13 The timeframe initially specified by the Federal Reserve for resolving issues will become more precise over time, and may be extended as circumstances warrant. As noted in current guidance, defined timeframes for resolving supervisory issues are communicated within either “Matters Requiring Attention” (MRAs) or “Matters Requiring Immediate Attention” (MRIAs). See SR letter 13-13/CA letter 13-10, “Supervisory Considerations for the Communication of Supervisory Findings,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1313.htm (referred to as “SR letter 13-13” in this notice). Proposed guidance which would replace SR letter 13-13 has been released for public comment concurrent with this proposal and is discussed below in Section VII, “Related Proposed Guidance.” An enforcement action will also specify the timeframe for a firm to resolve deficiencies.

    When a firm is rated “Satisfactory Watch,” supervisors would focus on determining whether a firm's issues are related to each other, similar in nature or root cause, or constitute a pattern reflecting deeper governance or risk management weaknesses, warranting a downgrade to a “Deficient” rating.

    III. Transition From the RFI Rating System to the LFI Rating System

    As noted above, the LFI supervision framework—as described in SR 12-17 and accompanied by the issuance of enhanced regulatory requirements, supervisory expectations and practices—has been established over recent years to enhance the ability of large systemically important firms to sustain operations through a range of stressful conditions and events. Introduction of a new rating system that is comprehensively aligned with the LFI supervision framework represents the natural next step in the build-out of this program. As such, transition to the proposed LFI rating system is intended to be evolutionary and expected to be routine in most respects for affected firms.

    Approaches to assessing an LFI's financial strength and resilience via effective capital and liquidity governance and planning, and sufficiency of related positions, are more prominent in the proposed LFI rating system versus the RFI rating system, and are fully reflective of current supervisory practices and expectations. Key conclusions of LFI supervision activities, including CCAR and CLAR, will be directly reflected within the Capital and Liquidity component rating assignments. By contrast, the RFI rating system was not designed to readily accommodate the results of these activities.

    Similarly, the key elements within the Governance and Controls component rating, which underlie a firm's operational resilience and overall risk management, are also consistent with current practices. Most of these elements can be traced to supervisory expectations for risk management and internal controls first introduced in 1995, and subsequently carried forth into the RFI rating system in 2004.14 These foundational aspects of a firm's governance and control framework, including expectations relating to the effectiveness of boards of directors and emphasis on sound risk management, remain present in the proposed LFI rating system, albeit with some changes in emphasis and nomenclature.

    14See SR letter 95-51, “Rating the Adequacy of Risk Management Processes and Internal Controls at State Member Banks and Bank Holding Companies,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/1995/sr9551.htm.

    The Governance and Controls component rating also provides an updated approach to assessing the effectiveness of risk management and control activities as conducted (i) directly within a firm's business line operations (where risk-taking activities are initiated and implemented), and (ii) throughout a firm's independent risk management and controls. More recently, key expectations regarding the alignment of a firm's strategy with its risk tolerance and risk management capabilities were included in SR letter 12-17, and are also reflected within capital planning guidance issued in 2015.15

    15See SR letter 15-18 and SR letter 15-19.

    The chart included below in Section X, “Comparison of the RFI and LFI Rating Systems,” broadly compares and illustrates the structural differences between the two rating systems.

    IV. Consequences of LFI Ratings

    Statutes and regulations applicable to LFIs grant a number of privileges to well managed firms.16 Under the RFI rating system, a firm's composite rating and Risk Management rating determine whether a holding company is considered to be “well managed” for purposes of these privileges.17 Under the proposed LFI rating system, a firm must be rated “Satisfactory” or “Satisfactory Watch” for each of its three component ratings in order to be considered “well managed.” 18 A rating of “Deficient-1” or lower for any component would result in the firm not being deemed “well managed.” This reflects the judgment that an LFI is not in satisfactory condition overall unless it is considered sound in each of the key areas of capital, liquidity, and governance and controls.

    16 12 U.S.C. 1841 et. seq. and 12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq. See, e.g., 12 CFR 225.4(b)(6), 225.14, 225.22(a), 225.23, 225.85, and 225.86; 12 CFR 211.9(b), 211.10(a)(14), and 211.34; and 12 CFR 223.41.

    17 12 U.S.C. 1841(o)(9)(A).

    18 For purposes of determining whether a firm is considered to be “well managed” under section 2(o)(9) of the BHC Act, the Federal Reserve considers the three component ratings, taken together, to be equivalent to assigning a standalone composite rating. In addition, the RFI rating system designates the “Risk Management” rating as the “management” rating when making “well managed” determinations under section 2(o)(9)(A)(ii) of the BHC Act. See SR letter 04-8. In contrast, the proposed LFI rating system would not designate any of the three component ratings as a “management” rating, because each component evaluates different areas of the firm's management.

    A “Deficient-1” component rating could be a barrier for a firm seeking the Federal Reserve's approval to engage in new or expansionary activities, unless the firm can demonstrate that (i) it is making meaningful, sustained progress in resolving identified deficiencies and issues; (ii) the proposed new or expansionary activities would not present a risk of exacerbating current deficiencies or issues or lead to new concerns; and (iii) the proposed activities would not distract the board or senior management from remediating current deficiencies or issues.

    The Federal Reserve would be extremely unlikely to approve any proposal seeking to engage in new or expansionary activities from a firm with a “Deficient-2” component rating.

    Under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act) and the Home Owners' Loan Act,19 companies that have elected to be treated as financial holding companies (FHCs) and that do not remain well managed face restrictions on commencement or expansion of certain activities. In addition, a firm with less than satisfactory ratings may be subject to restrictions or higher charges in attempting to access the Federal Reserve's discount window or in gaining access to intraday credit.

    19 12 U.S.C. 1843(l) and 12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(2).

    A “Deficient-1” component rating would often be an indication that the firm should be subject to either an informal or formal enforcement action, and may also result in the designation of the firm as being in “troubled condition.” 20 A firm with a “Deficient-2” component rating should expect to be subject to a formal enforcement action and deemed to be in “troubled condition.”

    20See 12 CFR 225.71(d).

    V. Applicability

    The Federal Reserve would use the proposed LFI rating system to evaluate and communicate the supervisory condition of all bank holding companies that have total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; all non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies that have total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; and all U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) of foreign banking organizations established pursuant to section 252.153 of the Federal Reserve's Regulation YY.21 In the future, the Federal Reserve plans to use the LFI rating system to assess systemically important nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) for supervision by the Federal Reserve; however, this would be done through a separate rulemaking.

    21See SR letter 12-17 and 12 CFR 252.153.

    The Federal Reserve has only applied the RFI rating system to saving and loan holding companies (SLHCs) on an indicative basis since assuming supervisory responsibility for those firms from the Office of Thrift Supervision in 2011. The Federal Reserve has proposed to apply the RFI rating system to SLHCs on a fully implemented basis, excluding SLHCs engaged in significant insurance or commercial activities. See 81 FR 89941 (December 13, 2016).

    Until final adoption of a LFI rating system, the Federal Reserve will continue to evaluate firms using the existing RFI rating system. Holding companies with less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets would continue to be evaluated using the RFI rating system.

    VI. Timing and Implementation

    The Federal Reserve proposes to assign initial LFI ratings to all applicable firms during 2018. Due to differences in the timing of supervisory cycles across the portfolios that comprise the LFI supervisory program, firms in one portfolio may receive their initial LFI ratings at different times during the year than firms in another portfolio.

    During the initial LFI rating supervisory cycle, each applicable firm would receive all three component ratings under the LFI rating system concurrently. Consistent with current Federal Reserve practice on the assignment and communication of supervisory ratings by examiners, ratings under the proposed LFI rating system would be assigned and communicated to firms on at an annual basis, and more frequently as warranted. After the initial LFI rating supervisory cycle, examiners may assign and communicate individual component ratings on a rolling basis to the firms. Under the proposed LFI rating system, the Federal Reserve would continue to generally rely to the fullest extent possible on the information and assessments developed by other relevant supervisors and functional regulators. In accordance with the Federal Reserve's regulations governing confidential supervisory information,22 ratings assigned under the LFI rating system would be communicated by the Federal Reserve to the firm but not disclosed publicly.

    22See 12 CFR 261.20.

    The proposed LFI rating system would apply if a firm reports total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, calculated based on the average of the firm's total consolidated assets in the four (4) most recent quarters as reported on the firm's quarterly financial reports filed with the Federal Reserve. A firm that meets this criteria would generally receive the three LFI component ratings within one year of becoming subject to the LFI rating system. A firm would continue to be rated under the LFI rating system until it has less than $45 billion in total consolidated assets, based on the average total consolidated assets as reported on the firm's four (4) most recent quarterly financial reports filed with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve may determine to apply the RFI rating system or another applicable rating system in certain limited circumstances.23

    23 For example, if a firm rated under the proposed LFI rating system substantially reduces its total consolidated assets substantially below $45 billion through a sale or divestiture (but remains subject to Federal Reserve supervision), the Federal Reserve may immediately begin to apply the RFI rating system, rather than waiting for the firm's four-quarter average to fall below the $45 billion threshold described above.

    VII. Related Proposed Guidance

    Concurrent with issuing this proposal, the Board is issuing another proposal for public comment addressing supervisory expectations for boards of directors of all Federal Reserve-supervised institutions.24 That proposal includes proposed guidance concerning the effectiveness of boards of directors of large financial institutions, which is an element of the Governance and Controls component rating. The Board also plans to separately release additional proposed guidance seeking comment on supervisory expectations relating to a firm's management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls, which is also an element of the Governance and Controls component rating. The Federal Reserve expects to release this additional guidance in the near future. However, if the LFI rating system is finalized before the additional governance and controls guidance is finalized, firms would be evaluated using existing supervisory guidance until such time that the additional governance and controls guidance is finalized.25

    24 “Federal Reserve-supervised institutions” includes bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, state member banks, U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations, and systemically important financial institutions designated by FSOC for supervision by the Federal Reserve.

    25 The above section III, “Transition from the RFI Rating System to the LFI Rating System,” lists prominent examples of existing supervisory guidance currently utilized to assess the effectiveness of an LFI's governance and controls, including SR letters 95-51, 12-17, 15-18, and 15-19. Other recent examples of related guidance include SR letter 13-19/CA letter 13-21, “Guidance on Managing Outsourcing Risk,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1319.htm and SR letter 13-1/CA letter 13-1, “Supplemental Policy Statement on the Internal Audit Function and Its Outsourcing,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1301.htm.

    The following section provides a summary of the planned guidance relating to a firm's management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls, as well as a summary of the proposed guidance relating to the effectiveness of a firm's board of directors.26

    26 The discussion below relating to a firm's management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls would only be applicable to domestic LFIs. Adjustments to extend applicability of this guidance to the U.S. operations of FBOs may be made prior to issuing the guidance for public comment.

    A. Management of Core Business Lines and Independent Risk Management and Controls

    The supervisory assessment of a firm's management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls would have three components: (1) Expectations for senior management with respect to both core business lines and independent risk management and controls; (2) expectations for the management of core business lines (CBLs); and (3) expectations for independent risk management (IRM) and controls.

    1. Senior Management

    Senior management oversees both the management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls. The supervisory assessment of the effectiveness of senior management would include senior management's role in managing the firm's day-to-day operations, promoting safety and soundness and compliance with internal policies and procedures, laws, and regulations, including those related to consumer protection.27

    27 Hereinafter, when reference is made to “compliance with laws and regulations” in this guidance, this includes laws and regulations related to banking as well as to consumer protection.

    Senior management is responsible for implementing the firm's strategy and risk tolerance as approved by the firm's board. Senior management should implement the strategic and risk objectives across the firm such that they support the firm's long-term resiliency and safety and soundness, including the firm's resilience to a range of stressed conditions. Senior management should ensure that the firm's infrastructure, staffing, and resources are sufficient to carry out the firm's strategic objectives.

    Senior management should maintain and implement an effective risk management framework and ensure the firm can appropriately manage risk consistent with its strategy and risk tolerance. This should include establishing clear responsibilities and accountability for the identification, management, and control of risk. Senior management should also develop and maintain the firm's policies and procedures and system of internal controls to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.

    Senior management is responsible for ensuring the resolution of key issues and effective firm-wide communication, including to and from the board of directors. Senior management should have in place robust mechanisms for keeping apprised of, among other things, current and emerging risks to the firm and other material issues, including by maintaining robust management information systems.

    Senior management should have in place succession and contingency staffing plans for key positions and have compensation and performance management programs that promote and enforce prudent risk-taking behaviors and business practices.

    2. Management of Core Business Lines

    The Federal Reserve would consider the effectiveness of the management of core business lines in meeting its supervisory expectations.28 For LISCC firms, all business lines would be considered CBLs. For other firms, CBLs would be defined as those business lines where a significant control disruption, failure, or loss event would result in a material loss of revenue, profit, or franchise value, or result in significant consumer harm.29 The Federal Reserve is reserving discretion to identify other business lines or functions as core business lines, based on their size, risk profile, or other supervisory considerations.

    28 All of the expectations for the management of CBLs described herein also apply to critical operations, which are central to the Federal Reserve's supervisory focus.

    29 For large financial institutions that are not LISCC firms, a firm's CBLs should comprise at least 80 percent of total revenue in aggregate.

    CBL management should establish for each core business line specific business and risk objectives that align with the firm-wide strategy and risk tolerance.30 CBL management should inform senior management when the risk management capabilities are insufficient to align those business and risk objectives. CBL management should also clearly present to senior management the risks emanating from the business line's activities and explain how those risks are managed and align with the firm's risk tolerance.

    30 “CBL management” refers to the core group of individuals responsible for prudent day-to-day management of a core business line and accountable to senior management for that responsibility. Depending on a firm's organizational structure, CBL management may or may not be members of senior management.

    CBL management should identify, measure, and manage current and emerging risks that stem from CBL activities and external factors. CBL management should also incorporate appropriate feedback from independent risk management (IRM) on business line risk positions, implementation of the risk tolerance, and risk management practices, including risk mitigation.

    CBL management should manage the CBL's activities so they remain within risk limits established by IRM, consult with senior management before permitting any breaches of the limits, and follow appropriate procedures for obtaining exceptions to limits. CBL management should also adhere to the firm's policies and procedures for vetting new business products and initiatives, and escalate to senior management any required changes or modifications to risk management systems or internal control policies and procedures arising from the adoption of a new business or initiative.

    CBL management should provide a CBL with sufficient resources and infrastructure to meet financial goals and strategic objectives while maintaining operational and financial resilience in a range of operating conditions, including stressful ones. Resources and infrastructure include sufficient personnel with appropriate training and expertise and management information systems.

    CBL management should develop and maintain an effective system of sound and appropriate internal controls for its CBL that ensures compliance with laws and regulations.31 CBL management should regularly test to ensure the effectiveness of controls within the business lines and ensure that deficiencies are remediated, and should escalate material deficiencies and systematic control violations to senior management, as well as provide periodic reports. Finally, CBL management should reassess controls periodically to ensure relevancy and alignment with current approved policies.

    31 For example, a CBL's system of controls should include access controls, change controls, and data integrity controls, including data reconciliations, variance analysis and data quality logic check.

    CBL management should establish policies and guidelines that delineate accountability, set forth clear lines of management authority within the CBL, and align desired behavior with the firm's performance management incentives. CBL management should hold employees accountable for conduct that is inconsistent with the firm's policies or board and senior management directives or that could result in violations of law. CBL management should inform senior management of improper conduct when appropriate, including individual instances and when there are identified patterns of misconduct. CBL management should have ongoing and effective means to prevent, detect, and remediate risk management and compliance failures.

    3. Independent Risk Management and Controls

    The Federal Reserve would assess whether the firm's independent risk management and controls meet supervisory expectations. This assessment would focus on three related areas: The independent risk management function, internal controls, and internal audit.

    a. Independent Risk Management (IRM) Function i. Chief Risk Officer (CRO)

    A CRO must have sufficient capability and experience in identifying, assessing, and managing risk exposures of large, complex financial institutions.32 The CRO should guide IRM to establish and monitor compliance with enterprise-wide risk limits, identify and aggregate the firm's risks, assess the firm's risk positions relative to the parameters of the firm's risk tolerance, and provide relevant risk information to senior management and the board of directors.

    32See 12 CFR 252.33.

    The CRO should inform the board of directors if his or her stature, independence, or authority is not sufficient or is at risk of being insufficient to provide unbiased and independent assessments of the firm's risks, risk management activities, and system of internal controls.33 Further, the CRO should be included in discussions with other senior management and the board related to key decisions, such as strategic planning and capital and liquidity planning, and provide input to the board on incentive compensation.

    33 Other officers of the firm may oversee portions of functions involved in risk management and control activities. See SR letter 08-08/CA letter 08-11, “Compliance Risk Management Programs and Oversight at Large Banking Organizations with Complex Compliance Profiles,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/2008/SR0808.htm.

    The CRO should notify senior management and the board of directors when activities or practices at the firm-wide, risk-specific, or CBL level do not align with the firm's overall risk tolerance. As appropriate, the CRO should recommend constraints on risk taking and enhancements to risk management practices to senior management and the board of directors.

    The CRO should support the independence of IRM from the business lines by establishing clearly defined roles and responsibilities and reporting lines.

    ii. Chief Audit Executive (CAE)

    The firm should have a CAE, appointed by the board, with sufficient capability, experience, independence, and stature to manage the internal audit function's responsibilities.34 Under the direction of the CAE, the internal audit function performs an independent assessment of the effectiveness of the firm's system of internal controls and the risk management framework. The CAE should manage effectively all aspects of internal audit work on an ongoing basis, including any internal audit work that is outsourced. The CAE should have the authority to oversee all internal audit activities and to hire internal audit staff with sufficient capability and stature. The CAE should report findings, issues, and concerns to the board's audit committee and senior management.

    34See SR letter 13-1/CA letter 13-1.

    iii. Risk Tolerance and Limits

    IRM should evaluate whether the firm's risk tolerance appropriately captures the firm's material risks, whether it aligns with the firm's strategic plan and the corresponding business activities, and whether it is consistent with the capacity of the risk management framework. IRM, including through the CRO, should provide input to both senior management and the board to assist in the development, evaluation, and approval of the firm's risk tolerance. IRM should also determine whether the firm's risk profile is consistent with the firm's risk tolerance and assess whether the firm's risk management framework has the capacity to manage the risks outlined in the risk tolerance.

    Under direction of the CRO, IRM should establish enterprise-wide risk limits as well as more granular risk limits, as appropriate, that are consistent with the firm's risk tolerance for the firm's full set of risks. IRM should monitor and update risk limits as appropriate, especially as the firm's risk tolerance, risk profile, or external conditions change. IRM should identify significant trends in risk levels to evaluate whether risk-taking and risk management practices are consistent with the firm's strategic objectives. IRM should escalate to senior management material breaches to the firm's risk tolerance and enterprise-wide risk limits, as well as instances where IRM's conclusions differ from those of CBLs.

    IRM should identify and measure under both normal and stressful operating conditions, where possible, current and emerging risks within and across business lines and risk types, as well as any other relevant perspective. Common risk types include credit, market, operational, liquidity, interest rate, legal, and compliance (such as consumer protection and Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering).

    IRM should aggregate risks across the entire firm and assess those risks relative to the firm's risk tolerance. IRM should identify material or critical concentrations of risks and assess the likelihood and potential impact of those risks on the firm. IRM should identify information gaps, uncertainties, or limitations in risk assessments for the board of directors and senior management, as appropriate.

    Risk reporting should cover current and emerging risk, risk exposure and adherence to risk limits and risk concentrations as well as the firm's ongoing strategic, capital, and liquidity planning processes. Risk reporting should enable prompt escalation and remediation of material problems; enhance appropriate and timely responses to identified problems; provide current and forward-looking perspectives; and support or influence strategic decision-making.

    b. Internal Controls

    Developing and maintaining effective internal controls are the responsibility of senior management, IRM, and CBL management. Accordingly, a firm should appropriately assign management responsibilities for the establishment and maintenance of internal controls. To foster an appropriate control culture within the firm, adequate control activities should be integrated into the daily functions of all relevant personnel.

    A firm should have mechanisms to monitor and test internal controls and to identify and escalate issues that appear to compromise the effectiveness of internal controls. The scope, frequency, and depth of testing should consider the complexity of the firm, the results of risk assessments, and the number and significance of the deficiencies identified during prior testing. A firm should test and monitor internal controls using a risk-based approach, prioritizing efforts on controls in areas of highest risk and less effective controls.

    A firm should evaluate and communicate internal control deficiencies in a timely manner to those parties responsible for taking corrective action, including senior management.

    c. Internal Audit

    The internal audit function should examine, evaluate, and perform an independent assessment of the effectiveness of the firm's risk management framework and internal control systems and report findings to senior management and the firm's audit committee. The Federal Reserve would assess the extent to which a firm complies with existing guidance on internal audit.35

    35 The Federal Reserve issued guidance outlining the key components of an effective internal audit function in SR letter 03-5, “Amended Interagency Guidance on the Internal Audit Function and its Outsourcing,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/2003/sr0305.htm and followed that with supplemental guidance in SR letter 13-1/CA letter 13-1. The supplemental guidance builds upon the 2003 interagency guidance of SR letter 03-5 and further addresses the characteristics, governance, and operational effectiveness of a firm's internal audit function.

    B. Board Effectiveness

    Concurrent with this proposal, the Board is issuing a related proposal for public comment addressing supervisory expectations for boards of directors of all Federal Reserve-supervised institutions. The Federal Reserve conducted a multi-year review of the practices of boards of directors, particularly at the largest financial institutions, which considered the factors that make boards effective, the challenges boards face, how boards influence the safety and soundness of their firms, and the impact of the Federal Reserve's expectations for boards of directors in existing supervisory guidance. The proposed guidance relating to boards of directors and its accompanying notice published in the Federal Register constitute the results of the review. The review identified three key issues that could potentially reduce a board's ability to be effective. First, supervisory expectations for boards of directors and senior management have become increasingly difficult to distinguish. Second, boards typically spend a significant amount of time focused on supervisory expectations that do not directly relate to the board's core responsibilities, which include guiding the development of the firm's strategy and risk tolerance, overseeing senior management and holding them accountable, supporting the stature and independence of the firm's independent risk management and internal audit functions, and adopting effective governance practices. Third, boards of large financial institutions often face significant challenges managing the overwhelming quantity of information provided by senior management in advance of board meetings.

    The proposal would refocus existing supervisory expectations on a board's core responsibilities by more clearly distinguishing the roles and responsibilities of the board from those of senior management; eliminating redundant, outdated, or irrelevant supervisory expectations for boards; and ensuring that supervisory guidance is more closely aligned.

    The proposal contains three parts, the first of which includes proposed supervisory guidance addressing effective boards of directors (proposed BE guidance), which would apply to the largest depository institution holding companies supervised by the Federal Reserve. The proposed BE guidance identifies five key attributes of effective boards of directors and would provide the framework the Federal Reserve would use to assess a firm's board of directors. The proposed BE guidance also would clarify supervisory expectations for boards as distinct from expectations for senior management.

    The second part of the proposal would revise certain supervisory expectations for boards to ensure they are aligned with the Federal Reserve's supervisory framework, and would eliminate redundant, outdated, or irrelevant supervisory expectations. These changes reflect the Federal Reserve's review of approximately 170 existing supervisory expectations contained in 27 Supervision and Regulation letters (SR letters), and would apply to bank and savings and loan holding companies of all sizes.

    The third part of the proposal includes proposed supervisory guidance that would replace Federal Reserve SR letter 13-13 36 and clarify expectations for communicating supervisory findings to an institution's board of directors and senior management. This proposed guidance, like the existing guidance, would apply to all financial institutions supervised by the Federal Reserve. The proposed guidance would facilitate the execution of boards' core responsibilities by clarifying expectations for communicating supervisory findings to an institution's board of directors and senior management. The proposed guidance would indicate that Federal Reserve examiners and supervisory staff would direct most Matters Requiring Immediate Attention (MRIAs) and Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs) to senior management for corrective action. MRIAs and MRAs would only be directed to the board for corrective action when the board needs to address its corporate governance responsibilities or when senior management fails to take appropriate remedial action. The board would remain responsible for holding senior management accountable for remediating supervisory findings.

    36See SR letter 13-13.

    VIII. Other Related Developments

    Upon finalizing the LFI rating system, the Federal Reserve expects to issue supervisory guidance to update and align the consolidated supervisory framework, including SR letter 12-17, to be fully consistent with any modifications made through the final adoption of the LFI rating system as well as supervisory guidance relating to governance and controls.

    In the future, the Federal Reserve may propose to revise the LFI rating system to include an additional rating component to assess the sufficiency of resolution planning efforts undertaken by LISCC firms (and perhaps other select LFIs) to reduce the impact on the U.S. financial system in the event of the firm's failure. This proposed revision to the LFI rating system would be issued for notice and comment.

    IX. Proposed Changes to Existing Regulations

    References to holding company ratings are included in a number of the Federal Reserve's existing regulations. In certain cases, the regulations are narrowly constructed such that they contemplate only the assignment of a standalone composite rating using a numerical rating scale. This is consistent with the current RFI rating system but is not compatible with the proposed LFI rating system. Three provisions in the Federal Reserve's existing regulations are written in this manner, including two in Regulation K and one in Regulation LL. In Regulation K, section 211.2(z) of Regulation K includes a definition of “well managed” which in part requires a bank holding company to have received a composite rating of 1 or 2 at its most recent examination or review; and section 211.9(a)(2) requires an investor (which by definition can be a bank holding company) to have received a composite rating of at least 2 at its most recent examination in order to make investments under the general consent or limited general consent procedures contained in sections 211.9(b) and (c). In Regulation LL, section 238.54(a)(1) restricts savings and loan holding companies from commencing certain activities without the Federal Reserve's prior approval unless the company received a composite rating of 1 or 2 at its most recent examination.

    To ensure that the Federal Reserve's regulations are consistent and compatible with all aspects of both the RFI rating system as well as the proposed LFI rating system, the Federal Reserve proposes to amend those three regulatory provisions so they would apply to entities which receive numerical composite ratings as well as to entities which do not receive numerical composite ratings (including firms subject to the proposed LFI rating system).37 To satisfy the requirements of those provisions, firms that do not receive numerical composite ratings would have to be considered satisfactory under the proposed LFI rating system. To be considered satisfactory, a firm would have to be rated “Satisfactory” or “Satisfactory Watch” for each component of the proposed LFI rating system; a firm which is rated “Deficient-1” or lower for any component would not be considered satisfactory. This standard would apply to any provision contained in the Federal Reserve's regulations which requires or refers to a firm having a satisfactory composite rating.

    37 The Board may propose additional necessary revisions to its regulations resulting from the adoption of a final LFI rating system.

    X. Comparison of the RFI and LFI Rating Systems

    The proposed LFI rating system includes several structural changes from the RFI rating system. The following table provides a broad comparison between the two rating systems.

    RFI rating system Proposed LFI rating system R—Risk Management
  • An evaluation of the ability of the BHC's board of directors and senior management to identify, measure, monitor, and control risk
  • The rating is supported by four subcomponent ratings:
  • • Board and Senior Management Oversight
  • • Policies, Procedures, and Limits
  • • Risk Monitoring and Management Information Systems
  • • Internal Controls
  • Assessment of the effectiveness of a firm's governance and risk management practices is central to the Governance and Controls component rating. The Governance and Controls rating evaluates a firm's effectiveness in aligning strategic business objectives with risk management capabilities; maintaining strong and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit; promoting compliance with laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection; and otherwise providing for the ongoing resiliency of the firm.
  • Governance and risk management practices specifically related to maintaining financial strength and resilience are also incorporated into the Capital Planning and Positions and Liquidity Risk Management and Positions component ratings.
  • F—Financial Condition
  • An evaluation of the consolidated organization's financial strength
  • The rating is supported by four subcomponent ratings:
  • • Capital Adequacy
  • • Asset Quality
  • • Earnings
  • • Liquidity
  • Assessment of a firm's financial strength and resilience is specifically evaluated through the Capital Planning and Positions and Liquidity Risk Management and Positions component ratings. These component ratings assess the effectiveness of associated planning and risk management processes, and the sufficiency of related positions.
  • Although asset quality and earnings are not rated separately, they continue to be important elements in assessing a firm's safety and soundness and resiliency, and are important considerations within each of the LFI component ratings.
  • I—Impact
  • An assessment of the potential impact of the firm's nondepository entities on its subsidiary depository institution(s)
  • Although a separate “Impact” rating would not be assigned, the LFI rating system would assess a firm's ability to protect the safety and soundness of its subsidiary depository institutions, including whether the firm can provide financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary depository institutions.38
    D—Depository Institutions
  • Generally reflects the composite CAMELS rating assigned by the primary supervisor of the subsidiary depository institution(s).39
  • A separate rating for a firm's depository institution subsidiaries would not be assigned. The Federal Reserve will continue to rely to the fullest extent possible on supervisory assessments developed by the primary supervisor of the subsidiary depository institution(s).
    C—Composite Rating
  • The overall composite assessment of the BHC as reflected by the R, F, and I ratings, and supported by examiner judgment with respect to the relative importance of each component to the safe and sound operation of the BHC
  • A standalone composite rating would not be assigned. The three LFI component ratings are designed to clearly communicate supervisory assessments and associated consequences for each of the core areas (capital, liquidity and governance and controls) considered critical to an LFI's strength and resilience.
  • For purposes of determining whether a firm is “well managed,” the three component ratings taken together would be treated as equivalent to a standalone composite rating. Each component must be rated either “Satisfactory” or “Satisfactory Watch” in order for a firm to be deemed “well managed.”
  • XI. Request for Comments

    The Board invites comments on all aspects of the proposed LFI rating system, including responses to the following questions:

    38See Sections 616 of DFA (financial strength), 12 CFR 225.4 of the Board's Regulation Y, and 12 CFR 238.8 of the Board's Regulation LL.

    39See SR letter 96-38, “Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System,” at http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/1996/sr9638.htm.

    (1) Are there specific considerations beyond those outlined in this proposal that should be considered in the Federal Reserve's assessment of whether an LFI has sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe and sound operations?

    (2) Does the proposal clearly describe the firms that would be subject to the LFI rating system, and those firms that would continue to be subject to the RFI rating system?

    (3) Does the proposal clearly describe the supervisory expectations for senior management in the evaluation of a firm's governance and controls under the proposed LFI rating system?

    (4) Does the proposal clearly describe how and under what circumstances a “Satisfactory Watch” rating would or would not be assigned? Does that rating provide appropriate messaging and incentives to firms to correct identified deficiencies?

    (5) Should the LFI rating system be revised at a future date to assess the sufficiency of a firm's resolution planning efforts undertaken to reduce the impact on the financial system in the event of the firm's failure? If yes, what should the Federal Reserve specifically consider in conducting that assessment?

    (6) Are there options that should be considered to enhance the transparency of LFI ratings in order to incent more timely and comprehensive remediation of supervisory deficiencies or issues?

    (7) What specific issues should the Federal Reserve consider when using the LFI rating system to inform future revisions to other supervisory rating systems used to assess the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations?

    XII. Regulatory Analysis A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There is no collection of information required by this proposal that would be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Board is providing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to this proposed rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), generally requires an agency to assess the impact a rule is expected to have on small entities. The RFA requires an agency either to provide an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with a proposed rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required or to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on the Board's analysis and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that neither the proposed LFI rating system nor the proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after comments received during the public comment period have been considered.

    Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a small entity includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with assets of $550 million or less (small banking organizations). As of June 1, 2017, there were approximately 3,539 small banking organizations. As described above, the proposed LFI rating system would apply only to all bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; all non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations established pursuant to section 252.153 of the Federal Reserve's Regulation YY. Small banking organizations would therefore not be subject to the proposed LFI rating system. Similarly, the proposed rule would make conforming changes to several regulations to reflect certain aspects of the proposed LFI rating system, but would not change the operation of those regulations for any entity that would not be subject to the proposed LFI rating system. As a result, neither the proposed LFI rating system nor the proposed rule should have any impact on small banking organizations. In light of the foregoing, the Board believes that the proposed LFI rating system will not have a significant economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board.

    C. Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Board to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board invites comment on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example:

    • Has the Board organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could the proposal be more clearly stated?

    • Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, what language requires clarification?

    • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposal easier to understand? If so, what changes would make the proposal easier to understand?

    • Would more, but shorter, sections be better? If so, what sections should be changed?

    • What else could the Board do to make the proposal easier to understand?

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 211

    Exports, Federal Reserve System, Foreign banking, Holding companies, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    12 CFR Part 238

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 211 and 238 as follows:

    PART 211—INTERNATIONAL BANKING OPERATIONS (REGULATION K) 1. The authority citations for part 211 continues to read as follows: 12 U.S.C. 221 et seq., 1818, 1835a, 1841 et seq., 3101 et seq., 3901 et seq., and 5101 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801 and 6805. 2. Section 211.2 is amended by revising paragraph (z) to read as follows:
    § 211.2 Definitions.

    (z) Well managed means that the Edge or agreement corporation, any parent insured bank, and the bank holding company either received a composite rating of 1 or 2 or is considered satisfactory under the applicable rating system, and has at least a satisfactory rating for management if such a rating is given, at their most recent examination or review.

    3. Section 211.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 211.9 Investment Procedures.

    (a) * * *

    (2) Composite rating. Except as the Board may otherwise determine, in order for an investor to make investments under the general consent or limited general consent procedures of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, at the most recent examination the investor and any parent insured bank must have either received a composite rating of at least 2 or be considered satisfactory under the applicable rating system.

    PART 238—SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANIES (REGULATION LL) 1. The authority citations for part 211 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552, 559; 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1813, 1817, 1829e, 1831i, 1972; 15 U.S.C. 78l.

    2. Section 238.54 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 238.54 Permissible bank holding company activities of savings and loan holding companies.

    (a) * * *

    (1) The holding company received a rating of satisfactory or above prior to January 1, 2008, or thereafter, either received a composite rating of “1” or “2” or be considered satisfactory under the applicable rating system in its most recent examination, and is not in a troubled condition as defined in § 238.72, and the holding company does not propose to commence the activity by an acquisition (in whole or in part) of a going concern; or

    Appendix A Note: This Appendix A will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Text of Proposed Large Financial Institution Rating System A. Overview of LFI Rating System

    The Federal Reserve will use the large financial institution (LFI) rating system to evaluate and communicate the condition and prospects of domestic bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, certain savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations.1 The LFI rating system will replace the existing RFI/C(D) rating system that is presently used by the Federal Reserve to assign ratings to applicable holding companies.2

    1 The LFI rating system will apply to non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. With respect to U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) of foreign banking organizations (FBOs), the LFI rating system applies only to IHCs established under Regulation YY as required for FBOs with U.S. non-branch assets of $50 billion or more. Plans are for systemically important nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) for supervision by the Federal Reserve to be subject to the LFI rating system at a future date through a separate rulemaking.

    2 Refer to SR letter 04-18, “Bank Holding Company Rating System,” 69 FR 70444 (December 6, 2004), at https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/2004/sr0418.htm.

    The LFI rating system draws from the supervisory objectives set forth in the Consolidated Supervisory Framework for Large Financial Institutions for enhanced financial and operational strength and resilience for the largest and most systemically important firms.3 The LFI rating system is designed to:

    3 Refer to SR letter 12-17/CA letter 12-14, “Consolidated Supervisory Framework for Large Financial Institutions,” at http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/srletters/sr1217.htm. This supervisory framework will be updated to more closely align with the LFI rating system when the rating system is released in its final form.

    “Financial strength and resilience” is defined as maintaining effective capital and liquidity governance and planning processes, and sufficiency of related positions, to provide for continuity of the consolidated organization and its core business lines, critical operations, and banking offices through a range of conditions.

    “Operational strength and resilience” is defined as maintaining effective governance and controls to provide for continuity of the consolidated organization and its core business lines, critical operations, and banking offices, and promote compliance with laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection, through a range of conditions.

    “Critical operations” are a firm's operations, including associated services, functions and support, the failure or discontinuance of which, in the view of the firm or the Federal Reserve would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.

    Under SR letter 12-17, “banking offices” are defined as U.S. depository institution subsidiaries and the U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs. The Federal Reserve expects to use the LFI rating system to inform future revisions to other rating systems used to assess the U.S. operations of FBOs.

    • Fully align with the Federal Reserve's current supervisory programs and practices, which are based upon the LFI supervision framework's core objectives of reducing the probability of LFIs failing or experiencing material distress and reducing the risk to U.S. financial stability;

    • Enhance the clarity and consistency of supervisory assessments and communications of supervisory findings and implications; and

    • Provide appropriate incentives for LFIs to maintain financial and operational strength and resilience, including compliance with laws and regulations, by more clearly defining the consequences of a given rating.

    Consistent with current practice, LFI ratings will be assigned and communicated to firms on at least an annual basis, and more frequently as warranted to reflect the conclusions of supervisory activities performed by the Federal Reserve. In determining the LFI rating and identifying supervisory issues requiring corrective action by a firm, the Federal Reserve will generally rely to the fullest extent possible on the information and assessments developed by other relevant supervisors and functional regulators.

    B. LFI Rating Framework

    The LFI rating framework provides a supervisory evaluation of whether a firm possesses sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe and sound operations through a range of conditions.4

    4 Hereinafter, when “safe and sound” or “safety and soundness” is used in this framework, related expectations apply to the consolidated organization and a firm's critical operations and banking offices.

    The LFI rating system is comprised of three components, described below:

    Capital Planning and Positions: An evaluation of (i) the effectiveness of a firm's governance and planning processes used to determine the amount of capital necessary to cover risks and exposures, and to support activities through a range of conditions; and (ii) the sufficiency of a firm's capital positions to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and to support the firm's ability to continue to serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    Liquidity Risk Management and Positions: An evaluation of (i) the effectiveness of a firm's governance and risk management processes used to determine the amount of liquidity necessary to cover risks and exposures, and to support activities through a range of conditions; and (ii) the sufficiency of a firm's liquidity positions to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and to support the firm's ongoing obligations through a range of conditions.

    Governance and Controls: An evaluation of the effectiveness of a firm's (i) board of directors, (ii) management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls, and (iii) recovery planning (for domestic LISCC firms only).5 This rating assesses a firm's effectiveness in aligning strategic business objectives with the firm's risk tolerance and risk management capabilities; maintaining strong, effective, and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit; promoting compliance with laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection; and otherwise planning for the ongoing resiliency of the firm.6

    5 References to “board” or “board of directors” in this framework includes the equivalent to a board of directors, as appropriate, as well as committees of the board of directors or the equivalent thereof, as appropriate.

    A “business line” is a defined unit or function of a financial institution, including associated operations and support, that provides related products or services to meet the firm's business needs and those of its customers. “Core business lines” are defined as those business lines in which a significant control disruption, failure or loss event would result in a material loss of revenue, profit, franchise value, or result in significant consumer harm. Supervisory expectations applicable to management of core business lines apply equally to the management of critical operations. Additionally, critical operations are to be sufficiently resilient to be maintained, continued, and funded even in the event of a firm's material financial distress or failure.

    At this time, recovery planning expectations only apply to domestic BHCs subject to the Federal Reserve's LISCC supervisory framework. Should the Federal Reserve expand the scope of recovery planning expectations to encompass additional firms, this rating will reflect such expectations for the broader set of firms.

    There are eight domestic firms in the LISCC portfolio: (1) Bank of America Corporation; (2) Bank of New York Mellon Corporation; (3) Citigroup, Inc.; (4) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; (5) JP Morgan Chase & Co.; (6) Morgan Stanley; (7) State Street Corporation; and (8) Wells Fargo & Company. In this guidance, these eight firms may collectively be referred to as “domestic LISCC firms.”

    6 “Risk tolerance” is defined as the aggregate level and types of risk the board and senior management are willing to assume to achieve the firm's strategic business objectives, consistent with applicable capital, liquidity, and other requirements and constraints.

    Assignment of the LFI Component Ratings

    Each LFI component rating is assigned along a multi-level scale (Satisfactory/Satisfactory Watch, Deficient-1, and Deficient-2). A “Satisfactory” rating indicates that the firm is considered safe and sound and broadly meets supervisory expectations. A “Satisfactory Watch” rating is a conditional “Satisfactory” rating and is discussed in greater detail below. A “Deficient-1” rating indicates that although the firm's current condition is not considered to be materially threatened, there are financial and/or operational deficiencies that put its prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at significant risk. A “Deficient-2” rating indicates that financial and/or operational deficiencies materially threaten the firm's safety and soundness, or have already put the firm in an unsafe and unsound condition.

    Supervisors may assign a “Satisfactory Watch” component rating which indicates that the firm is generally considered safe and sound; however certain issues are sufficiently material that, if not resolved in a timely manner in the normal course of business, would put the firm's prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at risk.7 Use of the “Satisfactory Watch” rating is consistent with existing supervisory practice of giving notice that the Federal Reserve is likely to downgrade a firm to a less-than-satisfactory rating if identified weaknesses are not resolved in a timely manner. The “Satisfactory Watch” rating may also be used for firms previously rated “Deficient” when circumstances warrant.

    7 For purposes of the LFI rating system, “during the normal course of business” is when the Federal Reserve believes that supervisory issues can be resolved via remediation or mitigation (through compensating controls and/or a reduced risk profile) in a timely manner without material changes to, or investments in, a firm's governance, risk management or internal control structures, practices, or capabilities.

    A “Satisfactory Watch” rating is not intended to be used for a prolonged period. Firms that receive a “Satisfactory Watch” rating will have a specified timeframe to fully resolve issues leading to that rating (as is the case with all supervisory issues), generally no longer than 18 months.8 If the firm successfully resolves the issues leading to the “Satisfactory Watch” rating, the firm would typically be upgraded to “Satisfactory” as it has demonstrated an ability to successfully remediate or mitigate these issues in a timely manner in the normal course of business. However, if the firm fails to timely remediate or mitigate those issues, this failure would generally be viewed as evidence that the firm lacks sufficient financial and/or operational capabilities to remain safe and sound through a range of conditions. In these instances the firm would typically be downgraded to a “Deficient” rating.

    8 The timeframe initially specified by the Federal Reserve for resolving issues will become more precise over time, and may be extended as circumstances warrant. As noted in current guidance, defined timeframes for resolving supervisory issues are communicated within either “Matters Requiring Attention” (MRAs) or “Matters Requiring Immediate Attention” (MRIAs). See SR letter 13-13/CA letter 13-10, “Supervisory Considerations for the Communication of Supervisory Findings,” at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1313.htm. Proposed guidance which would replace SR letter 13-13 has been released for public comment. An enforcement action will also specify the timeframe for a firm to resolve deficiencies.

    When a firm is rated “Satisfactory Watch,” supervisors would focus on determining whether a firm's issues are related to each other, similar in nature or root cause, or constitute a pattern reflecting deeper governance or risk management weaknesses, warranting a downgrade to a “Deficient” rating.

    The weighting of individual elements within each LFI component rating will depend on their relative contribution to the rating definitions outlined below. For example, a limited number of significant deficiencies—or even just one significant deficiency—noted for management of a single core business line could be viewed as sufficiently important to warrant a “Deficient” Governance and Controls component rating, even if the firm meets supervisory expectations under the Governance and Controls component in all other respects.

    A standalone composite rating is not assigned under the LFI rating system. The three LFI component ratings are designed to clearly communicate supervisory assessments and associated consequences to a firm for the core areas (capital, liquidity, and governance and controls) considered critical to an LFI's strength and resilience.

    Under the LFI rating system, a firm must be rated “Satisfactory” or “Satisfactory Watch” for each of its component ratings to be considered “well managed” in accordance with various statutes and regulations.9 A “well managed” firm has sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe and sound operations through a range of conditions.

    9 12 U.S.C. 1841 et. seq. and 12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq. See, e.g., 12 CFR 225.4(b)(6), 225.14, 225.22(a), 225.23, 225.85, and 225.86; 12 CFR 211.9(b), 211.10(a)(14), and 211.34; and 12 CFR 223.41.

    C. LFI Rating Components

    The LFI rating system is comprised of three component ratings: 10

    10 There may be instances where deficiencies or supervisory issues may be relevant to the Federal Reserve's assessment of more than one component area. As such, the LFI rating will reflect these deficiencies or issues within multiple rating components when necessary to provide a comprehensive supervisory assessment.

    1. Capital Planning and Positions Component Rating

    The Capital Planning and Positions component rating evaluates (i) the effectiveness of a firm's governance and planning processes used to determine the amount of capital necessary to cover risks and exposures, and to support activities through a range of conditions; and (ii) the sufficiency of a firm's capital positions to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and to support the firm's ability to continue to serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    In developing this rating, the Federal Reserve will evaluate:

    Capital Planning: The extent to which a firm maintains sound capital planning practices though strong governance and oversight; strong risk management and controls; maintenance of updated capital policies and contingency plans for addressing potential shortfalls; and incorporation of appropriately stressful conditions and events into capital planning and projections of capital positions; and

    Capital Positions: The extent to which a firm's capital is sufficient to comply with regulatory requirements, and to support its ability to meet its obligations to depositors, creditors, and other counterparties and continue to serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    Definitions for the Capital Planning and Positions Component Rating Satisfactory

    A firm's capital planning and positions are considered sound and broadly meet supervisory expectations. Specifically:

    • A firm is capable of producing sound assessments of capital adequacy through a range of conditions; and

    • A firm's current and projected capital positions comply with regulatory requirements, and support its ability to absorb current and potential losses, to meet obligations, and to continue to serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    Although a firm rated “Satisfactory” may have supervisory issues requiring corrective action, the firm is effectively mitigating the issues or the Federal Reserve has deemed the issues as unlikely to present a threat to the firm's ability to maintain safe and sound operations.

    Satisfactory Watch

    In select circumstances, a “Satisfactory Watch” component rating may be assigned. In these instances a firm's capital planning and positions are generally considered sound; however certain supervisory issues are sufficiently material that, if not resolved by the firm in a timely manner during the normal course of business, would put the firm's prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at risk.

    A “Satisfactory Watch” rating may be assigned to a firm that meets these characteristics regardless of its prior rating (that is, it may be assigned to a firm previously rated “Satisfactory” or “Deficient”). In either instance, the Federal Reserve will not use the “Satisfactory Watch” rating for a prolonged period. In most instances, the firm will either (i) resolve the issues in a timely manner and be assigned a “Satisfactory” rating, or (ii) fail to resolve the issues and be downgraded to a “Deficient” rating, as its inability to resolve those issues in a timely manner would indicate that the firm does not possess sufficient financial and operational capabilities to maintain its safety and soundness through a range of conditions.

    The Federal Reserve will provide an expected timeframe for the firm to remediate or mitigate each issue leading to the “Satisfactory Watch” rating, and will closely monitor the firm's progress.

    Deficient-1

    Although a firm's current condition is not considered to be materially threatened, there are deficiencies in capital planning or positions that put its prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at significant risk. Its practices and capabilities do not meet supervisory expectations, as:

    • Deficiencies in a firm's capital planning processes are not effectively mitigated. These deficiencies limit the firm's ability to effectively assess capital adequacy through a range of conditions; and/or

    • A firm's projected capital positions may be insufficient to absorb potential losses, and to support its ability to meet prospective obligations and serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    These deficiencies require timely corrective action focused on restoring and maintaining capital planning capabilities and capital positions consistent with assignment of a “Satisfactory” component rating. To support supervisory efforts—and ensure the immediate attention of the firm's board and senior management towards restoring financial and operational strength and resilience as necessary to maintain the firm's safety and soundness through a range of conditions—there is a strong presumption that the firm will be subject to an informal or formal enforcement action by the Federal Reserve.

    A “Deficient-1” component rating could be a barrier for a firm seeking the Federal Reserve's approval of a proposal to engage in new or expansionary activities, unless the firm can demonstrate that (i) it is making meaningful, sustained progress in resolving identified deficiencies and issues; (ii) the proposed new or expansionary activities would not present a risk of exacerbating current deficiencies or issues or lead to new concerns; and (iii) the proposed activities would not distract the board or senior management from remediating current deficiencies or issues.

    Deficient-2

    Deficiencies in a firm's capital planning or positions present a material threat to its safety and soundness, or have already put the firm in an unsafe and unsound condition. Its practices and capabilities fall well short of supervisory expectations, as:

    • A firm's capital planning processes are insufficient to effectively assess capital adequacy through a range of conditions; and/or

    • A firm's current and projected capital positions are insufficient to absorb current or potential losses, and to support its ability to meet current and prospective obligations and serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    To address these deficiencies, a firm is required to (i) implement comprehensive corrective measures sufficient to restore and maintain satisfactory capital planning capabilities and adequate capital positions; and (ii) demonstrate the sufficiency, credibility, and readiness of contingency planning and options in the event of further escalation of financial or operational deficiencies. To support supervisory efforts and ensure the immediate attention of the firm's board and senior management in addressing threats to safety and soundness, there is a strong presumption that the firm will be subject to a formal enforcement action.

    The Federal Reserve would be extremely unlikely to approve any proposal from a firm with a “Deficient-2” rating to engage in new or expansionary activities.

    2. Liquidity Risk Management and Positions Component Rating

    The Liquidity Risk Management and Positions component rating evaluates (i) the effectiveness of a firm's governance and risk management processes used to determine the amount of liquidity necessary to cover risks and exposures, and to support activities through a range of conditions; and (ii) the sufficiency of a firm's liquidity positions to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and to support the firm's ongoing obligations through a range of conditions.

    In developing this rating, the Federal Reserve will evaluate:

    Liquidity Risk Management: The extent to which a firm maintains sound liquidity risk management practices though strong governance and oversight; strong risk management and controls; maintenance of updated liquidity policies and contingency plans for addressing potential shortfalls; and incorporation of appropriately stressful conditions and events into liquidity planning and projections of liquidity positions; and

    Liquidity Positions: The extent to which a firm's liquidity is sufficient to comply with regulatory requirements, and to support its ability to meet current and prospective obligations to depositors, creditors and other counterparties through a range of conditions.

    Definitions for the Liquidity Risk Management and Positions Component Rating Satisfactory

    A firm's liquidity risk management and positions are considered sound and broadly meet supervisory expectations. Specifically:

    • A firm is capable of producing sound assessments of liquidity adequacy through a range of conditions; and

    • A firm's current and projected liquidity positions comply with regulatory requirements, and support its ability to meet current and prospective obligations and to continue to serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    Although a firm rated “Satisfactory” may have supervisory issues requiring corrective action, the firm is effectively mitigating the issues or the Federal Reserve has deemed the issues as unlikely to present a threat to the firm's ability to maintain safe and sound operations.

    Satisfactory Watch

    In select circumstances, a “Satisfactory Watch” component rating may be assigned. In these instances a firm's liquidity risk management and positions are generally considered sound; however certain supervisory issues are sufficiently material that, if not resolved by the firm in a timely manner during the normal course of business, would put the firm's prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at risk.

    A “Satisfactory Watch” rating may be assigned to a firm that meets these characteristics regardless of its prior rating (that is, it may be assigned to a firm previously rated “Satisfactory” or “Deficient”). In either instance, the Federal Reserve will not use the “Satisfactory Watch” rating for a prolonged period. In most instances, the firm will either (i) resolve the issues in a timely manner and be assigned a “Satisfactory” rating, or (ii) fail to resolve the issues and be downgraded to a “Deficient” rating, as its inability to resolve those issues in a timely manner would indicate that the firm does not possess sufficient financial and operational capabilities to maintain its safety and soundness through a range of conditions.

    The Federal Reserve will provide an expected timeframe for the firm to remediate or mitigate each issue leading to the “Satisfactory Watch” rating, and will closely monitor the firm's progress.

    Deficient-1

    Although a firm's current condition is not considered to be materially threatened, there are deficiencies in liquidity risk management or positions that put its prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at significant risk. Its practices and capabilities do not meet supervisory expectations, as:

    • Deficiencies in a firm's liquidity risk management processes are not effectively mitigated. These deficiencies limit the firm's ability to effectively assess liquidity adequacy through a range of conditions; and/or

    • A firm's projected liquidity positions may be insufficient to support its ability to meet prospective obligations and serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    These deficiencies require timely corrective action, focused on restoration and maintenance of liquidity risk management capabilities and liquidity positions consistent with assignment of a “Satisfactory” component rating. To support supervisory efforts—and ensure the immediate attention of the firm's board and senior management towards restoring financial and operational strength and resilience as necessary to maintain the firm's safety and soundness through a range of conditions—there is a strong presumption that the firm will be subject to an informal or formal enforcement action by the Federal Reserve.

    A “Deficient-1” component rating could be a barrier for a firm seeking the Federal Reserve's approval of a proposal to engage in new or expansionary activities, unless the firm can demonstrate that (i) it is making meaningful, sustained progress in resolving identified deficiencies and issues; (ii) the proposed new or expansionary activities would not present a risk of exacerbating current deficiencies or issues or lead to new concerns; and (iii) the proposed activities would not distract the board or senior management from remediating current deficiencies or issues.

    Deficient-2

    Deficiencies in a firm's liquidity risk management or positions present a material threat to its safety and soundness, or have already put the firm in an unsafe and unsound condition. Its practices and capabilities fall well short of supervisory expectations, as:

    • A firm's liquidity risk management processes are insufficient to perform an effective assessment of liquidity adequacy through a range of conditions; and/or

    • A firm's current and projected liquidity positions are insufficient to support its ability to meet current and prospective obligations and serve as a financial intermediary through a range of conditions.

    To address these material deficiencies, a firm is required to immediately (i) implement comprehensive corrective measures sufficient to provide for the restoration and continued maintenance of satisfactory liquidity risk management capabilities and adequate liquidity positions; and (ii) demonstrate the sufficiency, credibility and readiness of contingency planning and options in the event of further escalation of financial or operational deficiencies. To support supervisory efforts and ensure the immediate attention of the firm's board and senior management in addressing threats to safety and soundness, there is a strong presumption that the firm will be subject to a formal enforcement action.

    The Federal Reserve would be extremely unlikely to approve any proposal from a firm with a “Deficient-2” rating to engage in new or expansionary activities.

    3. Governance and Controls Component Rating

    The Governance and Controls component rating evaluates the effectiveness of a firm's (i) board of directors, (ii) management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls, and (iii) recovery planning (for domestic LISCC firms only). This rating assesses a firm's effectiveness in aligning strategic business objectives with the firm's risk tolerance and risk management capabilities; maintaining strong, effective, and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit; promoting compliance with laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection; and otherwise providing for the ongoing resiliency of the firm.11

    11 Hereinafter, references to “compliance with laws and regulations” include laws and regulations related to banking and consumer protection.

    In developing this rating, the Federal Reserve will evaluate:

    Effectiveness of the Board of Directors: The extent to which the board exhibits attributes consistent with those of effective boards in carrying out its core roles and responsibilities, including setting a clear strategy for the firm that aligns with the firm's risk tolerance; actively managing information flow and board discussions; holding senior management accountable for implementing the firm's strategy and risk tolerance in an effective manner, and for maintaining the firm's risk management and control framework; supporting the independence and stature of the firm's independent risk management and internal audit functions; and maintaining its effectiveness by adapting its composition, governance structure and practices to changes that occur over time.

    Management of Core Business Lines and Independent Risk Management and Controls

    The extent to which:

    ○ Senior management effectively and prudently manages the day-to-day operations of the firm and provides for ongoing resiliency; implements the firm's strategy and risk tolerance; maintains an effective risk management framework and system of internal controls; and promotes prudent risk taking behaviors and business practices, including compliance with laws and regulations.

    ○ Core business line management executes business line activities consistent with the firm's strategy and risk tolerance; identifies and manages risks; and ensures an effective system of internal controls for its operations.

    ○ Independent risk management effectively evaluates whether the firm's risk tolerance appropriately captures material risks and is consistent with the firm's risk management capacity; establishes and monitors risk limits that are consistent with the firm's risk tolerance; identifies and measures the firm's risks; and aggregates, assesses and reports on the firm's risk profile and positions. Additionally, the firm demonstrates that its system of internal controls is appropriate and tested for effectiveness. Finally, internal audit effectively and independently assesses the firm's risk management framework and internal control systems, and reports findings to senior management and the firm's audit committee.

    Recovery Planning (domestic LISCC firms only): The extent to which recovery planning processes effectively identify options that provide a reasonable chance of a firm being able to remedy financial weakness and restore market confidence without extraordinary official sector support.

    Definitions for the Governance and Controls Component Rating Satisfactory

    A firm's governance and control practices are considered sound and broadly meet supervisory expectations. Specifically, a firm's practices and capabilities are sufficient to align strategic business objectives with the firm's risk tolerance and risk management capabilities; maintain strong and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit; promote compliance with laws and regulations; and otherwise provide for the firm's ongoing resiliency through a range of conditions.

    Although a firm rated “Satisfactory” may have supervisory issues requiring corrective action, the firm is effectively mitigating the issues or the Federal Reserve has deemed the issues as unlikely to present a threat to the firm's ability to maintain safe and sound operations.

    Satisfactory Watch

    Supervisors may assign a “Satisfactory Watch” component rating, which indicates that governance and controls are generally considered sound; however certain supervisory issues are sufficiently material that, if not resolved by the firm in a timely manner during the normal course of business, would put the firm's prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at risk.

    A “Satisfactory Watch” rating may be assigned to a firm which meets these characteristics regardless of its prior rating (that is, it may be assigned to a firm previously rated “Satisfactory” or “Deficient”). In either instance, the Federal Reserve will not use the “Satisfactory Watch” rating for a prolonged period. In most instances, the firm will either (i) resolve the issues in a timely manner and be assigned a “Satisfactory” rating, or (ii) fail to resolve the issues and be downgraded to a “Deficient” rating, as its inability to resolve those issues in a timely manner would indicate that the firm does not possess sufficient financial and operational capabilities to maintain its safety and soundness through a range of conditions.

    The Federal Reserve will provide an expected timeframe for the firm to remediate or mitigate each issue leading to the “Satisfactory Watch” rating, and will closely monitor the firm's progress.

    Deficient-1

    Although a firm's current condition is not considered to be materially threatened, there are deficiencies in a firm's governance or controls that put its prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at significant risk.

    The firm's practices and capabilities do not meet supervisory expectations, and deficiencies limit its ability to align strategic business objectives with the firm's risk tolerance and risk management capabilities; maintain strong and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit; promote compliance with laws and regulations; and/or otherwise provide for the firm's ongoing resiliency through a range of conditions.

    These deficiencies require timely corrective action by the firm, focused on restoring and maintaining its governance and control capabilities consistent with a “Satisfactory” component rating. To support supervisory efforts—and ensure the immediate attention of the firm's board and senior management towards restoring financial and operational strength and resilience as necessary to maintain the firm's safety and soundness through a range of conditions—there is a strong presumption that the firm will be subject to an informal or formal enforcement action by the Federal Reserve.

    A “Deficient-1” component rating could be a barrier for a firm seeking the Federal Reserve's approval of a proposal to engage in new or expansionary activities, unless the firm can demonstrate that (i) it is making meaningful, sustained progress in resolving identified deficiencies and issues; (ii) the proposed new or expansionary activities would not present a risk of exacerbating current deficiencies or issues or lead to new concerns; and (iii) the proposed activities would not distract the board or senior management from remediating current deficiencies or issues.

    Deficient-2

    Deficiencies in a firm's governance or controls present a material threat to its safety and soundness, or have already put the firm in an unsafe and unsound condition.

    Its practices and capabilities fall well short of supervisory expectations, and are insufficient to align strategic business objectives with the firm's risk tolerance and risk management capabilities; maintain strong and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit; promote compliance with laws and regulations; and/or otherwise provide for the firm's ongoing resiliency.

    To address these material deficiencies, a firm is required to (i) implement comprehensive corrective measures sufficient to restore and maintain appropriate governance and control capabilities; and (ii) demonstrate the sufficiency, credibility and readiness of contingency planning and options in the event of further escalation of financial or operational deficiencies. To support supervisory efforts and ensure the immediate attention of the firm's board and senior management in addressing threats to safety and soundness, there is a strong presumption that the firm will be subject to a formal enforcement action.

    The Federal Reserve would be extremely unlikely to approve any proposal from a firm with a “Deficient-2” rating to engage in new or expansionary activities.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 3, 2017. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16736 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0770; Product Identifier 2017-NM-030-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-03-07, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2014-03-07 requires inspecting certain locations of the wire bundles of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for damage, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2014-03-07 also requires installing nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel. Since we issued AD 2014-03-07, we determined that it is necessary to require an inspection of the wire bundles for damage at additional center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations on certain airplanes. This proposed AD would add that inspection and expand the applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0770.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0770; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5262; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0770; Product Identifier 2017-NM-030-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On January 21, 2014, we issued AD 2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-07”), for certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2014-03-07 superseded AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009). AD 2014-03-07 requires inspecting certain locations of the wire bundles of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for damage, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2014-03-07 also requires installing nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel. AD 2014-03-07 resulted from reports that identified additional locations where inspections and corrective actions of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank are needed. We issued AD 2014-03-07 to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2014-03-07 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-03-07, we determined that, for certain airplanes, it is necessary to inspect the wire bundles at additional center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations for damage. We have also expanded the applicability to add one airplane (Line Number 579) that is also affected by the identified unsafe condition.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016. This service information describes procedures for inspecting certain wire bundles of the center auxiliary fuel tank for damage, and repairing or replacing damaged wires. This service information also describes procedures for installing barrier/shield sleeving, clamping, and an extruded channel. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2014-03-07. This proposed AD would add inspection requirements for certain airplanes and expand the applicability. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference between this Proposed AD and Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0770.

    Difference Between This Proposed AD and Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection/installation [retained actions from AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009)] 168 to 182 work-hours × $85 per hour = $14,280 to $15,470 per inspection cycle $15,708 to $28,005 $29,988 to $43,475 per inspection cycle $3,748,500 to $5,434,375 per inspection cycle. Inspection/installation for Groups 1, 2, and 5, all Configuration 2 airplanes (retained actions from AD 2014-03-07) Up to 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 $6,166 Up to $6,931 Up to $866,375. Inspection/installation for Groups 1, 2, and 5, all Configuration 2 airplanes (new proposed action) Up to 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 Up to $340 Up to $42,500. Inspection/installation for Line Number 579 (new proposed action) 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $28,005 $340 $28,345.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0770; Product Identifier 2017-NM-030-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 2, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-07”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer that indicated the need to inspect wire bundles at certain locations of the center upper auxiliary fuel tanks in addition to inspection locations required by AD 2014-03-07. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Inspection and Corrective Action, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-03-07, with revised service information. For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009: Within 60 months after February 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009)), do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009; Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; or Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, may be used. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the wire bundles between Stations 1238.950 and 1361.000 to determine if wires touch the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank, and mark the location, as applicable.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection for splices and damage of all wire bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank between Stations 1218.950 and 1381.000.

    (3) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) of the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank.

    (4) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) on the fuel vapor barrier seal.

    (5) Install a nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel.

    (h) Retained Additional Inspections and Corrective Action, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-03-07, with revised service information. For airplanes in Group 1, Configuration 2; Group 2, Configuration 2; and Group 5, Configuration 2; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011: Within 60 months after March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), do a detailed inspection of wire bundles for splices and damage (chafing, arcing, and broken insulation) and damage (burn marks) on the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and fuel vapor barrier seal; install barrier/shield sleeving and clamping; and do all applicable corrective actions at the applicable locations specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, may be used for the actions required by this paragraph. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations 1238.950 and 1381.000, Stations 1238.950 and 1256.000, and Stations 1238.950 and 1256.800, depending on passenger or freighter configuration.

    (2) For Group 2, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations 1238.950 and 1275.250, and Stations 1238.950 and 1275.250, passenger configuration only.

    (3) For Group 5, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations 1381.000 and 1238.950.

    (i) New Inspections and Corrective Actions for Certain Airplanes

    For Groups 1, 2, and 5 Configuration 2 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.

    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the wire bundles at the additional center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations to determine if wires touch the upper surface of the fuel tank, and mark the location as applicable.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the wire bundles for splices and damage on the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and fuel vapor barrier seal; install barrier/shield sleeving, clamping, and extruded channels, as applicable; and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight; except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (j) New Requirements for Line Number 579

    For airplane Line Number 579: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (k) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009; Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; specifies to contact The Boeing Company for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the auxiliary fuel tank using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), using the service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) or (l)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 2, dated November 18, 2010.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 3, dated June 3, 2011.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), using Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 3, dated June 3, 2011.

    (m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (3) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-03-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5262; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 28, 2017. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16560 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2891; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-1] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Deblois, ME AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface in Deblois, ME, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving Deblois Flight Strip. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule 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-2015-2891; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Deblois Flight Strip, Deblois, ME, to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

    Comments Invited

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

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-2891 and Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-1) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-2891; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Deblois Flight Strip, Deblois, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) 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 designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANE ME E5 Deblois Flight Strip, Deblois, ME [New] Deblois Flight Strip, ME (Lat. 44°43′35″ N., long. 67°59′27″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Deblois Flight Strip, and within 1-mile either side of a 135° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7-mile radius to 10.5 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 8, 2017 Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17259 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION 36 CFR Part 407 RIN 3263-AA00 ABMC Privacy Program AGENCY:

    American Battle Monuments Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule provides guidance and assigns responsibility for the privacy program under the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and applicable Office of Management Budget (OMB) guidance.

    DATES:

    Send comments on or before October 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, identified by RIN number, by the following method:

    • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 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 MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edwin L. Fountain, General Counsel, American Battle Monuments Commission, 2300 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 500, Arlington VA 22201, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The authority for this rulemaking is 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, which requires the implementation of the Act by Federal agencies.

    This action ensures that ABMC's collection, use, maintenance, or dissemination of information about individuals for purposes of discharging its statutory responsibilities will be performed in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and applicable OMB guidance. This rule:

    • Establishes rules of conduct for ABMC personnel and ABMC contractors involved in the design, development, operation, or maintenance of any system of records.

    • Establishes appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity that could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual about whom information is maintained.

    • Ensures that guidance, assistance, and subject matter expert support are provided ABMC staff, contractors and the public as needed in the implementation and execution of and compliance with the ABMC Privacy Program.

    • Ensures that laws, policies, procedures, and systems for protecting individual privacy rights are implemented throughout ABMC.

    Regulatory Procedures 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, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule benefits the public and the United States Government by providing clear procedures for members of the public, contractors, and employees to follow with regard to the ABMC privacy program. This rule has been designated a not 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 ABMC 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. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require ABMC 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 36 CFR Part 407

    Privacy.

    Dated: August 10, 2017. Robert J. Dalessandro, Acting Secretary, ABMC. 36 CFR Chapter IV is proposed to be amended by adding part 407 to read as follows: PART 407—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 Sec. 407.1 Purpose and scope of the regulations in this part. 407.2 Definitions. 407.3 Inquiries about ABMC's systems of records or implementation of the Privacy Act. 407.4 Procedures for acquiring access to ABMC records pertaining to an individual. 407.5 Identification required when requesting access to ABMC records pertaining to an individual. 407.6 Procedures for amending or correcting an individual's ABMC record. 407.7 Procedures for appealing a refusal to amend or correct an ABMC record. 407.8 Fees charged to locate, review, or copy records. 407.9 Procedures for maintaining accounts of disclosures made by ABMC from its systems of records. Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a(f).

    § 407.1 Purpose and scope of the regulations in this part.

    The regulations in this part set forth ABMC's procedures under the Privacy Act, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(f), with respect to systems of records maintained by ABMC. The rules in this part apply to all records maintained by ABMC that are retrieved by an individual's name or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. These regulations establish procedures by which an individual may exercise the rights granted by the Privacy Act to determine whether an ABMC system of records contains a record pertaining to him or her; to gain access to such records; and to request correction or amendment of such records. These rules should be read together with the Privacy Act, which provides additional information about records maintained on individuals.

    § 407.2 Definitions.

    The definitions in subsection (a) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(a)) apply to this part. In addition, as used in this part:

    ABMC means the American Battle Monuments Commission;

    ABMC system means a system of records maintained by ABMC;

    Business day means a calendar day, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays.

    General Counsel means the General Counsel of ABMC, or his or her designee.

    Individual means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

    Privacy Act or Act means the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a);

    Secretary means the Secretary of ABMC, or his or her designee;

    You, your, or other references to the reader of the regulations in this part are meant to apply to the individual to whom a record pertains.

    § 407.3 Inquiries about ABMC's systems of records or implementation of the Privacy Act.

    Inquiries about ABMC's systems of records or implementation of the Privacy Act should be sent to the following address: American Battle Monuments Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington VA 22201.

    § 407.4 Procedures for accessing ABMC records pertaining to an individual.

    The following procedures apply to records that are contained in an ABMC system:

    (a) You may request to be notified if a system of records that you name contains records pertaining to you, and to review any such records, by writing to the Office of the General Counsel (see § 407.3). You also may call the Office of the General Counsel at (703) 696-6902 on business days, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., to schedule an appointment to make such a request in person. A request for records should be presented in writing and should identify specifically the ABMC system(s) involved. Your request to access records pertaining to you will be treated as a request under both the Privacy Act, as implemented by this part, and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), as implemented by part 404 of this title (36 CFR 404.1 through 404.10).

    (b) Access to the records, or to any other information pertaining to you that is contained in the system, shall be provided if the identification requirements of § 407.5 are satisfied and the records are determined otherwise to be releasable under the Privacy Act and these regulations. ABMC shall provide you an opportunity to have a copy made of any such records about you. Only one copy of each requested record will be supplied, based on the fee schedule in § 407.8.

    (c) ABMC will comply promptly with requests made in person at scheduled appointments, if the requirements of this section are met and the records sought are immediately available. ABMC will acknowledge, within 10 business days, mailed requests or personal requests for records that are not immediately available, and the information requested will be provided promptly thereafter.

    (d) If you make your request in person at a scheduled appointment, you may, upon your request, be accompanied by a person of your choice to review your records. ABMC may require that you furnish a written statement authorizing discussion of your records in the accompanying person's presence. A record may be disclosed to a representative chosen by you upon your proper written consent.

    (e) Medical or psychological records pertaining to you shall be disclosed to you unless, in the judgment of ABMC, access to such records might have an adverse effect upon you. When such a determination has been made, ABMC may refuse to disclose such information directly to you. ABMC will, however, disclose this information to you through a licensed physician designated by you in writing.

    (f) If you are unsatisfied with an adverse determination on your request to access records pertaining to you, you may appeal that determination using the procedures set forth in § 407.7(a).

    § 407.5 Identification required when requesting access to ABMC records pertaining to an individual.

    ABMC will require reasonable identification of all individuals who request access to records in an ABMC system to ensure that records are disclosed to the proper person.

    (a) The amount of personal identification required will of necessity vary with the sensitivity of the record involved. In general, if you request disclosure in person, you will be required to show an identification card, such as a driver's license, containing your photograph and sample signature. However, with regard to records in ABMC systems that contain particularly sensitive and/or detailed personal information, ABMC reserves the right to require additional means of identification as are appropriate under the circumstances. These means include, but are not limited to, requiring you to sign a statement under oath as to your identity, acknowledging that you are aware of the criminal penalties for requesting or obtaining records under false pretenses or falsifying information (see 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3); 18 U.S.C. 1001).

    (b) If you request disclosure by mail, ABMC will request such information as may be necessary to ensure that you are properly identified and for a response to be sent. Authorized means to achieve this goal include, but are not limited to, requiring that a mail request include a signed, notarized statement asserting your identity or a statement signed under oath as described in subsection (a) of this section.

    § 407.6 Procedures for amending or correcting an individual's ABMC record.

    (a) You are entitled to request amendments to or corrections of records pertaining to you that you believe are not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act, including 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2). Such a request should be made in writing and addressed to the Office of the General Counsel (see § 407.3).

    (b) Your request for amendments or corrections should specify the following:

    (1) The particular record that you are seeking to amend or correct;

    (2) The ABMC system from which the record was retrieved;

    (3) The precise correction or amendment you desire, preferably in the form of an edited copy of the record reflecting the desired modification; and

    (4) Your reasons for requesting amendment or correction of the record.

    (c) ABMC will acknowledge a request for amendment or correction of a record within 10 business days of its receipt, unless the request can be processed and the individual informed of the General Counsel's decision on the request within that 10-day period.

    (d) If after receiving and investigating your request, the General Counsel agrees that the record is not accurate, timely, or complete, based on a preponderance of the evidence, then the record will be corrected or amended promptly. The record will be deleted without regard to its accuracy, if the record is not relevant or necessary to accomplish the ABMC function for which the record was provided or is maintained. In either case, you will be informed in writing of the amendment, correction, or deletion. In addition, if accounting was made of prior disclosures of the record, all previous recipients of the record will be informed of the corrective action taken.

    (e) If after receiving and investigating your request, the General Counsel does not agree that the record should be amended or corrected, you will be informed promptly in writing of the refusal to amend or correct the record and the reason for this decision. You also will be informed that you may appeal this refusal in accordance with § 407.7.

    (f) Requests to amend or correct a record governed by the regulations of another agency will be forwarded to such agency for processing, and you will be informed in writing of this referral.

    § 407.7 Procedures for appealing a refusal to amend or correct an ABMC record.

    (a) You may appeal a refusal to amend or correct a record to the Secretary of ABMC. Such appeal must be made in writing within 30 business days of your receipt of the initial refusal to amend or correct your record. Your appeal should be sent to the Office of the General Counsel (see § 407.3), should indicate that it is an appeal, and should include the basis for the appeal.

    (b) The Secretary will review your request to amend or correct the record, the General Counsel's refusal, and any other pertinent material relating to the appeal. No hearing will be held.

    (c) The Secretary shall render his or her decision on your appeal within 30 business days of its receipt by ABMC, unless the Secretary, for good cause shown, extends the 30-day period. Should the Secretary extend the appeal period, you will be informed in writing of the extension and the circumstances of the delay.

    (d) If the Secretary determines that the record that is the subject of the appeal should be amended or corrected, the record will be so modified, and you will be informed in writing of the amendment or correction. Where an accounting was made of prior disclosures of the record, all previous recipients of the record will be informed of the corrective action taken.

    (e) If your appeal is denied, you will be informed in writing of the following:

    (1) The denial and the reasons for the denial;

    (2) That you may submit to ABMC a concise statement setting forth the reasons for your disagreement as to the disputed record. Under the procedures set forth in subsection (f) of this section, your statement will be disclosed whenever the disputed record is disclosed; and

    (3) That you may seek judicial review of the Secretary's determination under 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1).

    (f) Whenever you submit a statement of disagreement to ABMC in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the record will be annotated to indicate that it is disputed. In any subsequent disclosure, a copy of your statement of disagreement will be disclosed with the record. If ABMC deems it appropriate, a concise statement of the Secretary's reasons for denying your appeal also may be disclosed with the record. While you will have access to this statement of the Secretary's reasons for denying your appeal, such statement will not be subject to correction or amendment. Where an accounting was made of prior disclosures of the record, all previous recipients of the record will be provided a copy of your statement of disagreement, as well as any statement of the Secretary's reasons for denying your appeal deemed appropriate.

    § 407.8 Fees charged to locate, review, or copy records.

    (a) ABMC will charge no fees for search time or for any other time expended by ABMC to review a record. However, ABMC may charge fees where you request that a copy be made of a record to which you have been granted access. Where a copy of the record must be made in order to provide access to the record (e.g., computer printout where no screen reading is available), the copy will be made available to you without cost.

    (b) Copies of records made by photocopy or similar process will be charged to you at the rate of $0.15 per page. Where records are not susceptible to photocopying (e.g., punch cards, magnetic tapes, or oversize materials), you will be charged actual cost as determined on a case-by-case basis. Copying fees will not be charged if the cost of collecting a fee would be equal to or greater than the fee itself. Copying fees for contemporaneous requests by the same individual shall be aggregated to determine the total fee.

    (c) Special and additional services provided at your request, such as certification or authentication, postal insurance, and special mailing arrangement costs, will be charged to you at the rates set forth in § 404.7(e) of this chapter.

    (d) You may request that a copying fee not be charged or, alternatively, be reduced, by submitting a written petition to ABMC's General Counsel (see § 407.3) asserting that you are indigent. If the General Counsel determines, based on the petition, that you are indigent and that ABMC's resources permit a waiver of all or part of the fee, the General Counsel may, in his or her discretion, waive or reduce the copying fee.

    (e) All fees shall be paid before any copying request is undertaken. Payments shall be made by check or money order payable to “American Battle Monuments Commission.”

    § 407.9 Procedures for accessing accountings of disclosures made by ABMC from its systems of records.

    (a) The Office of the General Counsel shall maintain a log containing the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person or to another agency. Such accounting also shall contain the name and address of the person or agency to whom each disclosure was made. This log need not include disclosures made to ABMC employees in the course of their official duties, or pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    (b) ABMC will retain the accounting of each disclosure for at least five years after the disclosure for which the accounting is made or for the life of the record that was disclosed, whichever is longer.

    (c) ABMC will make the accounting of disclosures of a record pertaining to you available to you at your request. Such a request should be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 407.4. This paragraph (c) does not apply to disclosures made for law enforcement purposes under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(7).

    [FR Doc. 2017-17281 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6120-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0415; FRL-9966-45-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the October 26, 2015, and May 19, 2017, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from Alabama replacing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) federal implementation plan (FIP). Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units (EGUs) in Alabama are subject to FIP provisions requiring the units to participate in a federal allowance trading program for ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX). This action would approve into Alabama's SIP the State's regulations requiring Alabama's affected units to participate in a new state allowance trading program for ozone season NOX emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal trading programs, replacing the corresponding CSAPR FIP requirements for Alabama. This state trading program is substantively identical to the federal trading program except with regard to the provisions allocating emission allowances among Alabama units. Under the CSAPR regulations, final approval of these portions of the SIP revisions would automatically eliminate Alabama units' FIP requirements to participate in CSAPR's federal allowance trading program for ozone season NOX emissions. Approval would also fully satisfy Alabama's good neighbor obligation under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in any other state; and would partially satisfy Alabama's good neighbor obligation under the CAA to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any other state.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0415 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:

    Ashten Bailey, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bailey can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9164 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Summary

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the October 26, 2015, and May 19, 2017, SIP revisions from Alabama concerning CSAPR 1 allowance trading programs for ozone season emissions of NOX. Large EGUs in Alabama are currently subject to CSAPR FIPs that require the units to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Group 2 Ozone Season Trading Program. The CSAPR regulations provide a process for the submission and approval of SIP revisions to replace the requirements of CSAPR FIPs with SIP requirements under which a state's units participate in CSAPR state trading programs that are integrated with and, with certain permissible exceptions, substantively identical to the CSAPR federal trading programs.

    1 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update), 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39 and subparts AAAAA through EEEEE of 40 CFR part 97); see also Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). EPA previously approved a SIP revision that replaced the CSAPR FIPs for the annual trading programs in Alabama. See 81 FR 59869 (Aug. 31, 2016).

    The portions of the SIP revisions proposed for approval would incorporate into Alabama's SIP state allowance trading program regulations for ozone season NOX emissions that would replace EPA's federal trading program regulations for those emissions from Alabama units. EPA is proposing to approve these portions of the SIP revisions, as clarified in a letter provided on August 4, 2017, because they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a federal trading program with a state trading program that is integrated with and substantively identical to the federal trading program except for permissible differences with respect to emission allowance allocation provisions. Under the CSAPR regulations, approval of these portions of the SIP revisions would automatically eliminate the obligations of EGUs in Alabama (but not any units in Indian country within Alabama's borders) to participate in CSAPR's federal trading programs for ozone season NOX emissions under the corresponding CSAPR FIPs. EPA proposes to find that approval of these portions of the SIP revisions would satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA also proposes to find that approval of these portions of the SIP revisions would partially satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any other state.

    Section II of this document summarizes relevant aspects of the CSAPR federal trading programs and FIPs as well as the range of opportunities states have to submit SIP revisions to modify or replace the FIP requirements while continuing to rely on CSAPR's trading programs to address the states' obligations to mitigate interstate air pollution. Section III describes the specific conditions for approval of such SIP revisions. Section IV contains EPA's analysis of Alabama's SIP submittal. Section V addresses incorporation by reference. Section VI sets forth EPA's proposed action on the submittal. Section VII addresses statutory and Executive Order reviews.

    II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 and the CSAPR Update 2 in 2016 to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of air pollution for specific NAAQS. As amended (including by the 2016 CSAPR Update), CSAPR requires 27 eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide “budgets” for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone season NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency: The Phase 1 budgets apply to emissions in 2015 and 2016; and the Phase 2 and CSAPR Update budgets apply to emissions in 2017 and later years. As a mechanism for achieving compliance with the emissions limitations, CSAPR establishes five federal emissions trading programs: a program for annual NOX emissions; two geographically separate programs for annual SO2 emissions; and two geographically separate programs for ozone season NOX emissions. CSAPR also establishes FIP requirements applicable to the large EGUs in each covered state.3 Currently, the CSAPR FIP provisions require each state's units to participate in up to three of the five CSAPR trading programs.

    2See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR Update was promulgated to address interstate pollution with respect to the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and to address a judicial remand of certain original CSAPR ozone season NOX budgets promulgated with respect to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. Id. at 74505. The CSAPR Update established new emission reduction requirements addressing the more recent ozone NAAQS and coordinated them with the remaining emission reduction requirements addressing the older NAAQS, so that starting in 2017, CSAPR includes two geographically separate trading programs for ozone season NOX emissions covering EGUs in a total of 23 states. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(1)-(2).

    3 States are required to submit good neighbor SIPs three years after a NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2). Where EPA finds that a state fails to submit a required SIP or disapproves a SIP, EPA is obligated to promulgate a FIP addressing the deficiency. CAA section 110(c). EPA found that Alabama failed to make timely submissions required to address the good neighbor provision with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 21147, Apr. 25, 2005), and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 39961, June 13, 2015). In addition, EPA disapproved Alabama's SIP revision submitted to address the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 43128 (July 20, 2011). Accordingly, as a part of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, EPA promulgated FIPs applicable to sources in Alabama addressing the good neighbor provision with respect to these standards.

    CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-related obligations using either CSAPR's federal emissions trading programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the federal programs, provided that the SIP revisions meet all relevant criteria.4 Through such a SIP revision, a state may replace EPA's default provisions for allocating emission allowances among the state's units, employing any state-selected methodology to allocate or auction the allowances, subject to timing conditions and limits on overall allowance quantities. In the case of CSAPR's federal trading programs for ozone season NOX emissions (or an integrated state trading program), a state may also expand trading program applicability to include certain smaller EGUs.5 If a state wants to replace the CSAPR FIP requirements with SIP requirements under which the state's units participate in a state trading program that is integrated with and identical to the federal trading program even as to the allocation and applicability provisions, the state may submit a SIP revision for that purpose as well. However, no emissions budget increases or other substantive changes to the trading program provisions are allowed. A state whose units are subject to multiple CSAPR federal trading programs may submit SIP revisions to modify or replace either some or all of those FIP requirements.

    4See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations using mechanisms other than the CSAPR federal trading programs or integrated state trading programs.

    5 States covered by both the CSAPR Update and the NOX SIP Call have the additional option to expand applicability under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program to include non-EGUs that would have participated in the NOX Budget Trading Program.

    States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.6 Specific conditions for approval of each form of SIP revision are set forth in the CSAPR regulations, as described in section III below. Under the first alternative—an “abbreviated” SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces the default allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions of a CSAPR federal trading program for the state.7 Approval of an abbreviated SIP revision leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other provisions of the relevant federal trading program in place for the state's units.

    6 CSAPR also provides for a third, more streamlined form of SIP revision that is effective only for control periods in 2016 (or 2018 for CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 units) and is not relevant here. See § 52.38(a)(3), (b)(3), (b)(7); § 52.39(d), (g).

    7 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (b)(4), (b)(8); 52.39(e), (h).

    Under the second alternative—a “full” SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR federal trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated with the federal trading program, so long as the state trading program is substantively identical to the federal trading program or does not substantively differ from the federal trading program except as discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.8 For purposes of a full SIP revision, a state may either adopt state rules with complete trading program language, incorporate the federal trading program language into its state rules by reference (with appropriate conforming changes), or employ a combination of these approaches.

    8 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i).

    The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First, upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular set of CSAPR FIP requirements, the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA withdrawal action, so long as EPA's approval of the SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the CSAPR regulations is full and unconditional.9 Second, approval of a full SIP revision does not terminate the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program for any units located in any Indian country within the borders of the state, and if and when a unit is located in Indian country within a state's borders, EPA may modify the SIP approval to exclude from the SIP, and include in the surviving CSAPR FIP instead, certain trading program provisions that apply jointly to units in the state and to units in Indian country within the state's borders.10 Finally, if at the time a full SIP revision is approved EPA has already started recording allocations of allowances for a given control period to a state's units, the federal trading program provisions authorizing EPA to complete the process of allocating and recording allowances for that control period to those units will continue to apply, unless EPA's approval of the SIP revision provides otherwise.11

    9 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(j).

    10 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv)-(v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v)-(vi), (b)(9)(vi)-(vii), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(f)(4)-(5), (i)(4)-(5), (j).

    11 40 CFR 52.38(a)(7), (b)(11); 52.39(k).

    III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision must meet the following general submittal conditions:

    Timeliness and completeness of SIP submittal. If a state wants to replace the default allowance allocation or applicability provisions of a CSAPR federal trading program, the complete SIP revision must be submitted to EPA by December 1 of the year before the deadlines described below for submitting allocation or auction amounts to EPA for the first control period for which the state wants to replace the default allocation and/or applicability provisions.12 This SIP submission deadline is inoperative in the case of a SIP revision that seeks only to replace a CSAPR FIP and federal trading program with a SIP and a substantively identical state trading program integrated with the federal trading program. The SIP submittal completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 also apply.

    12 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(vii), (b)(8)(iv), (b)(9)(viii); 52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), (h)(2), (i)(6).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP seeking to address the allocation or auction of emission allowances must meet the following further conditions:

    Methodology covering all allowances potentially requiring allocation. For each federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision, the SIP revision's allowance allocation or auction methodology must replace both the federal program's default allocations to existing units 13 at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), 97.711(a), or 97.811(a), as applicable, and the federal trading program's provisions for allocating allowances from the new unit set-aside (NUSA) for the state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a), 97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), 97.711(b)(1) and 97.712(a), or 97.811(b)(1) and 97.812(a), as applicable.14 In the case of a state with Indian country within its borders, while the SIP revision may neither alter nor assume the federal program's provisions for administering the Indian country NUSA for the state, the SIP revision must include procedures addressing the disposition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA that may be made available for allocation by the state after EPA has carried out the Indian country NUSA allocation procedures.15

    13 In the context of the approval conditions for CSAPR-related SIP revisions, an “existing unit” is a unit for which EPA has determined default allowance allocations (which could be allocations of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing and amending CSAPR. A document describing EPA's default allocations to existing units is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/csapr_allowance_allocations_final_rule_tsd.pdf.

    14 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(9)(iii); 52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1).

    15See 40 CFR 97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii), 97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii), 97.812(b)(10)(ii).

    Assurance that total allocations will not exceed the state budget. For each federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision, the total amount of allowances auctioned or allocated for each control period under the SIP revision (prior to the addition by EPA of any unallocated allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state) generally may not exceed the state's emissions budget for the control period less the sum of the amount of any Indian country NUSA for the state for the control period and any allowances already allocated to the state's units for the control period and recorded by EPA.16 Under its SIP revision, a state is free to not allocate allowances to some or all potentially affected units, to allocate or auction allowances to entities other than potentially affected units, or to allocate or auction fewer than the maximum permissible quantity of allowances and retire the remainder. Under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program only, additional allowances may be allocated if the state elects to expand applicability to non-EGUs that would have been subject to the NOX Budget Trading Program established for compliance with the NOX SIP Call.17

    16 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii)(A), (b)(8)(iii)(A), (b)(9)(iii)(A); 52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i).

    17 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(iii)(A), (b)(9)(iii)(A).

    Timely submission of state-determined allocations to EPA. The SIP revision must require the state to submit to EPA the amounts of any allowances allocated or auctioned to each unit for each control period (other than allowances initially set aside in the state's allocation or auction process and later allocated or auctioned to such units from the set-aside amount) by the following deadlines.18 Note that the submission deadlines differ for amounts allocated or auctioned to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and amounts allocated or auctioned to other units.

    18 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B)-(C), (a)(5)(i)(B)-(C), (b)(4)(ii)(B)-(C), (b)(5)(ii)(B)-(C), (b)(8)(iii)(B)-(C), (b)(9)(iii)(B)-(C); 52.39(e)(1)(ii)-(iii), (f)(1)(ii)-(iii), (h)(1)(ii)-(iii), (i)(1)(ii)-(iii).

    CSAPR NOX Annual, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1, CSAPR SO2 Group 1, and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Programs Units Year of the control period Deadline for submission to EPA of allocations or auction results Existing 2017 and 2018 June 1, 2016. 2019 and 2020 June 1, 2017. 2021 and 2022 June 1, 2018. 2023 and later years June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. Other All years July 1 of the year of the control period. CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program Units Year of the control period Deadline for submission to EPA of allocations or auction results Existing 2019 and 2020 June 1, 2018. 2021 and 2022 June 1, 2019. 2023 and 2024 June 1, 2020. 2025 and later years June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. Other All years July 1 of the year of the control period.

    No changes to allocations already submitted to EPA or recorded. The SIP revision must not provide for any change to the amounts of allowances allocated or auctioned to any unit after those amounts are submitted to EPA or any change to any allowance allocation determined and recorded by EPA under the federal trading program regulations.19

    19 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), (b)(4)(ii)(D), (b)(5)(ii)(D), (b)(8)(iii)(D), (b)(9)(iii)(D); 52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv), (i)(1)(iv).

    No other substantive changes to federal trading program provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that also expands program applicability as described below.20 Any new definitions adopted in the SIP revision (in addition to the federal trading program's definitions) may apply only for purposes of the SIP revision's allocation or auction provisions.21

    20 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), (b)(9); 52.39(e), (f), (h), (i).

    21 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(9)(iv); 52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), (h)(1), (i)(2).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision seeking to expand applicability under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 or CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Programs (or an integrated state trading program) must meet the following further conditions:

    Only electricity generating units with nameplate capacity of at least 15 MWe. The SIP revision may expand applicability only to additional fossil fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines serving generators producing electricity for sale, and only by lowering the generator nameplate capacity threshold used to determine whether a particular boiler or combustion turbine serving a particular generator is a potentially affected unit. The nameplate capacity threshold adopted in the SIP revision may not be less than 15 MWe.22 In addition or alternatively, applicability under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program may be expanded to non-EGUs that would have been subject to the NOX Budget Trading Program established for compliance with the NOX SIP Call.23

    22 40 CFR 52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i), (b)(8)(i), (b)(9)(i).

    23 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(ii), (b)(9)(ii).

    No other substantive changes to federal trading program provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that also addresses the allocation or auction of emission allowances as described above.24

    24 40 CFR 52.38(b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), (b)(9).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions and the other applicable conditions described above, a CSAPR-related full SIP revision must meet the following further conditions:

    Complete, substantively identical trading program provisions. The SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program regulations substantively identical to the complete federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through 97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, 97.702 through 97.735, or 97.802 through 97.835, as applicable, except as described above in the case of a SIP revision that seeks to replace the default allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.25

    25 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i).

    Only non-substantive substitutions for the term “State.” The SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term “State” as used in the federal trading program regulations, but only to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not substantively change the trading program regulations.26

    26 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), (b)(9)(v); 52.39(f)(3), (i)(3).

    Exclusion of provisions addressing units in Indian country. The SIP revision may not impose requirements on any unit in any Indian country within the state's borders and must not include the federal trading program provisions governing allocation of allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state.27

    27 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v), (b)(9)(vi); 52.39(f)(4), (i)(4).

    IV. Alabama's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis A. Alabama's SIP Submittal

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, among other findings, EPA determined that air pollution transported from Alabama would unlawfully affect other states' ability to attain or maintain the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.28 In the CSAPR Update rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution transported from Alabama would unlawfully affect other states' ability to attain or maintain the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and established an ozone season NOX budget for Alabama's EGUs representing a partial remedy for the State's interstate transport obligations with respect to that NAAQS; 29 determined that Alabama's previous ozone season NOX budget established in the CSAPR rulemaking as a partial remedy for the State's interstate transport obligations with respect to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS now represented a full remedy with respect to that NAAQS; 30 and coordinated compliance requirements by allowing compliance with the new CSAPR Update budget to serve the purpose of addressing the State's obligations with respect to both NAAQS.31 Alabama units meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria are consequently subject to CSAPR FIP requirements for participation in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program in order to address the State's interstate transport obligations with respect to both the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (full remedy) and the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (partial remedy).32

    28See 76 FR 48208, 48210, 48213 (August 8, 2011). EPA also determined in the CSAPR rulemaking that air pollution transported from Alabama would unlawfully affect other states' ability to attain or maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Alabama previously submitted, and EPA previously approved, a SIP revision that replaces the CSAPR FIPs for the annual trading programs in Alabama. See 81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016).

    29 CSAPR Update, 81 FR at 74507-08.

    30Id. at 74525.

    31Id. at 74563 n.169.

    32 40 CFR 52.38(b)(2), (b)(2)(iii); 52.54(a), (b).

    On October 26, 2015, Alabama submitted to EPA a SIP revision including provisions that, if approved, would incorporate into Alabama's SIP state trading program regulations that would replace the CSAPR federal trading program regulations with regard to Alabama units' ozone season NOX emissions.33 On May 19, 2017, Alabama submitted to EPA a SIP revision that supersedes portions of the October 26, 2015, submittal to reflect changes from the CSAPR Update.34 On August 4, 2017, Alabama sent a letter clarifying the State's interpretation concerning the allowances for the Indian country NUSA for Alabama. The Alabama ozone season submittals include duly adopted state rules at rules 335-3-8-.39 through 335-3-8-.70, which establish Alabama's “TR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program.” 35 In general, each individual rule in Alabama's CSAPR state trading program rules is designed to replace one individual section (or in a few cases two or three sections) of the corresponding federal trading program regulations, and the set of rules is designed to collectively replace all sections of the corresponding federal trading program regulations at subpart EEEEE of 40 CFR part 97 (i.e., 40 CFR 97.801 through 97.835).

    33 As discussed above, the October 26, 2015 submittal also contained provisions related to the annual NOX and SO2 trading programs, which EPA approved in a separate rulemaking. See 81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016).

    34 For the purposes of this rulemaking, the October 26, 2015, and May 19, 2017, submittals together may also be referred to as the “Alabama ozone season submittals.”

    35 Alabama's rules use the terms “Transport Rule” and “TR” instead of the updated terms “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” and “CSAPR.” For simplicity, EPA uses the updated terms here except where otherwise noted.

    With regard to form, some of the individual rules for each Alabama CSAPR state trading program are set forth as full regulatory text—notably the rules addressing program applicability, emissions budgets and variability limits, and allowance allocations—but most of the rules incorporate the corresponding federal trading program section or sections by reference. Several of the Alabama rules adopt cross-references to other Alabama rules in place of cross-references to specific federal trading program sections that would be replaced by those other Alabama rules.

    With regard to substance, the rules for the Alabama CSAPR state ozone season trading program differ from the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program regulations in three main ways. First, the applicability provisions in the Alabama rules require participation in Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs only for units in Alabama, not for units in any other state or in Indian country within the borders of Alabama or any other state. Second, the Alabama rules set forth a methodology for allocating emission allowances among Alabama units that differs from the default allowance allocation provisions in the federal trading program regulations.36 Finally, the Alabama rules omit a number of federal trading program provisions not applicable to Alabama's state trading programs, including: provisions setting forth the amounts of emissions budgets, NUSAs, Indian country NUSAs, and variability limits for other states; provisions addressing EPA's procedures for allocating allowances from Indian country NUSAs; and provisions addressing EPA's recordation of certain allowance allocations.

    36 EPA notes that in the CSAPR Update, the allocations of Alabama's allowance budget to the state's units under the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program were determined using a methodology similar to the methodology in Alabama's October 26, 2015 SIP submittal, 81 FR at 74564.

    Each SIP revision was submitted to EPA by a letter from the Director of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. The letters and enclosures describe steps taken by Alabama to provide public notice prior to adoption of the state rules.

    EPA has previously approved portions of Alabama's October 26, 2015, submittal replacing the FIPs for the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program for Alabama.37

    37See 81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016).

    B. EPA's Analysis of Alabama's Submittals

    As described in section IV.A above, at this time EPA is taking action on the portions of Alabama's ozone season submittals designed to replace the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program. The analysis discussed in this section addresses only the portions of Alabama's ozone season submittals on which EPA is taking action at this time. For simplicity, throughout this section EPA refers to the portions of the submittals on which EPA is proposing to take action as “the Alabama ozone season submittals” or “the SIP revisions” without repeating the qualification that at this time EPA is analyzing and proposing to act on only portions of the SIP submittal.

    1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal

    Together, the Alabama ozone season submittals seek in part to replace the default allowance allocation provisions in the CSAPR federal trading program regulations for ozone season NOX emissions as applied to Alabama units with state regulations establishing a different state-determined methodology, starting with the control periods in 2019. Under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(B), the deadline for submission of state-determined allowance allocations for the 2019 and 2020 control periods is June 1, 2018, which under § 52.38(b)(9)(viii) makes December 1, 2017, the deadline for submission to EPA of a complete SIP revision establishing state-determined allocations for those control periods. Alabama submitted its SIP revisions on October 26, 2015 and May 19, 2017, and EPA has determined that the submittals comply with the applicable minimum completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. Because Alabama's SIP revisions were timely submitted and meet the applicable completeness criteria, they meet the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(viii) for timely submission of a complete SIP revision.

    2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation

    Paragraph 335-3-8-.46(1) of the Alabama rules sets forth total amounts of 13,211 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances that would be allocated to Alabama units for each control period in 2019 and later years according to the allocation procedures set forth under the remaining paragraphs of Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46 (Paragraph 335-3-8-.45(1) sets forth the same amounts as the respective state emissions budgets, in conjunction with the corresponding variability limits). These totals match the amounts of the Phase 2 emissions budgets for Alabama established under the federal trading program regulations for ozone NOX emissions, thereby addressing the full quantities of allowances that could be allocated to Alabama units under the default allocation provisions for the federal trading programs.38 In addition, Alabama's rule—through provisions that create an iterative process for allocating allowances—addresses the disposition of otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA. The allocation provisions in the Alabama rules therefore enable Alabama's SIP revision to meet the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii) that the state's allocation or auction methodology must cover all allowances potentially requiring allocation by the state.

    38 40 CFR 97.810(a)(1)(i).

    3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget

    As discussed in section IV.B.2 above, paragraph 335-3-8-.46(1) of the Alabama rules sets forth the total amount of CSAPR Ozone Season Group 2 NOX allowances to be allocated to Alabama units for each control period under the state trading program and this amount equals the amount of the ozone season NOX emissions budget established for Alabama units under the CSAPR federal trading program regulations. Although under the State's rules, Alabama will provide EPA with allocations for allowances equal to the total amount of the state budget, the State has clarified in its August 4, 2017, letter that, under the State's interpretation of its rules, the allocations of a portion of the total state budget equal to the Indian country NUSA are to be implemented by EPA only if and when the total quantity of allowances in the State's Indian country NUSA is released for state allocation pursuant to 40 CFR 97.812(b)(10)(ii), and if that total quantity of allowances is not released for state allocation, then the State's allocations of that portion of the budget are void.39 To clarify the separate, contingent nature of the State's allocations of the Indian country NUSA allowances, the State will submit its allocations of those allowances to the EPA as a separate set of allocations from the allocations of the remaining allowances in the state budget.40 EPA has not yet allocated or recorded CSAPR allowances for the control periods in 2019 or later years. As interpreted by the State, the allocation methodology in Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(A) that the total amount of allowances allocated under the SIP revision (before the addition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA) may not exceed the state's budget for the control period less the amount of the Indian country NUSA for the state and any allowances already allocated and recorded by EPA.

    39 August 4, 2017, Letter from R. Gore (ADEM) to B. Banister (EPA, Region 4), available in the docket for this action.

    40Id.

    4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA

    Paragraphs 335-3-8-.46(2)(a) through (d) of the Alabama rules provide for all allowance allocations to Alabama units established under the Alabama rules to be submitted to EPA by the following deadlines: Allocations for the control periods in 2019 and 2020, by June 1, 2017; allocations for the control periods in 2021 and 2022, by June 1, 2018; and allocations for later control periods, by June 1 of the fourth or fifth year before the year of the control period. These submission deadlines match or precede the submission deadlines discussed in section III above (specifically, the deadlines under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(B) for allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and the submission deadlines under § 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(C) for allocations to other units). Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(B) and (C) requiring that the SIP revision provide for submission of state-determined allowance allocations to EPA by the deadlines specified in those provisions.

    5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded

    The Alabama rules include no provisions allowing alteration of allocations after the allocation amounts have been provided to EPA and no provisions allowing alteration of any allocations made and recorded by EPA under the federal trading program regulations, thereby meeting the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(D).

    6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions

    With the exception of the provisions addressing the allowance allocation methodology discussed above, the Alabama state trading program rules generally incorporate sections of the corresponding federal trading program regulations by reference or set forth full text that is very similar to the text in the corresponding federal trading program regulations.41 Some of the differences between the Alabama rules and the corresponding federal trading program regulations are clearly non-substantive. For example, in instances where an Alabama rule contains full text substituting for the text of a section of the federal trading program regulations, the remaining Alabama rules adopt cross-references to the full-text Alabama rule in place of cross-references to the section of the federal trading program regulations that would be replaced by the full-text Alabama rule. The Alabama rules also contain definitions for certain terms used in the State trading program's allocation provisions that are not used in the federal trading program regulations, as expressly permitted under the CSAPR regulations.42 Most of the remaining differences between the Alabama rules and the corresponding sections of the federal trading program regulations consist of non-substantive renumbering of the provisions.43

    41 The CSAPR federal regulations explicitly provide that terms in the federal CSAPR regulations that include “CSAPR” are considered synonymous with otherwise identical terms in approved SIP revisions that include “TR” instead of “CSAPR”. 40 CFR 97.802 (introductory text).

    42 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iv).

    43 Instances where Alabama's CSAPR state trading program rules omit provisions of the CSAPR federal trading program regulations are discussed in sections IV.B.7 and 9 below.

    In addition to the clearly non-substantive or expressly authorized differences summarized above, a few of Alabama's rules contain other differences from the federal trading program regulations. In each case, EPA has determined that the changes do not represent substantive changes to the federal trading program regulations. First, paragraphs 335-3-8-.40(1)(c), 335-3-8-.41(1)(a), and 335-3-8-.66(2)(a), of the Alabama rules require Alabama units to submit certain petitions, statements, and notices not only to EPA but also to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. In addition, paragraph 335-3-8-.42(e) of the Alabama rules allow the Department to extend on-site storage of records beyond five years. Because the additional notification requirements do not alter the respective authorities or responsibilities of EPA and the Department, EPA considers the requirements to be non-substantive changes.

    Second, paragraphs 335-3-8-.52(2)(a), and 335-3-8-.55(2)(a) of the Alabama rules provide that, like EPA, the Department will not adjudicate certain private legal disputes. Because the Department is not required to adjudicate such disputes under the federal trading program regulations in any event, these additions to the text of the state trading program rules merely clarify that the Department is not undertaking a new adjudication responsibility under the state trading programs. EPA therefore considers these additions to be non-substantive changes.

    Third, paragraph 335-3-8-.61 of the Alabama rule substitutes references to Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46(3)(i) (the Alabama rule addressing units incorrectly allocated allowances). Because the Alabama rule substitution seeks to replace 40 CFR 97.811(c) with 333-3-8.46(3)(i), which in turn incorporates by reference 40 CFR 97.811(c), EPA proposes to find that the provisions are substantively identical.

    Fourth, paragraph 335-3-8-.65 of the Alabama rules substitutes references for Alabama rule 335-3-8-.41 (the Alabama rule covering retired unit exemptions). This substitution is appropriate as it substitutes Alabama's retired unit exemption for the CSAPR retired unit exemptions at 40 CFR 97.805. With the exception of the notification required above and changes related to identification of the state trading program instead of the federal trading program, Alabama has incorporated the text of 40 CFR 97.805 into Alabama Rule 335-3-8-.41. Because the referenced provisions are substantively identical, EPA proposes to determine that these substitutions have no substantive effect.

    Finally, paragraphs 335-3-8-.42(2)(a) and (b) of the Alabama rules substitute references to Alabama rule 335.3.16-.13(3) (the Alabama rule addressing minor permit modification procedures) for references to 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2) (the minor permit modification procedures section of the federal regulations governing state operating permit programs under CAA title V) in the federal trading program regulations regarding title V permit requirements. As applied to Alabama units only, the substituted Alabama rule provisions are substantively identical to the provisions in 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2) that would be replaced. Because in the context of Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs these particular provisions need to address only Alabama units and not units from other states participating in the CSAPR trading programs, EPA proposes to determine that these substitutions have no substantive effect.

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA has preliminarily determined that none of the textual additions or substitutions made to the CSAPR federal trading program regulations in Alabama's corresponding CSAPR state trading program rules are substantive, and that Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9) of making no substantive changes to the provisions of the federal trading program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance allocations.

    7. Complete, Substantively Identical Trading Program Provisions

    With the following exceptions, the Alabama rules comprising Alabama's CSAPR state trading program for ozone season NOx emissions either incorporate by reference or adopt full-text replacements for all of the provisions of 40 CFR 97.802 through 97.835. The first exception is that Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46, which generally addresses the amount of emissions budget and related quantities, omits the provisions of 40 CFR 97.810 setting forth the amounts of all emissions budgets, NUSAs, Indian country NUSAs, and variability limits for other states. Omission of the budget, NUSA, Indian country NUSA, and variability limit provisions for other states from state trading programs in which only Alabama units participate does not undermine the completeness of the state trading programs.

    The second exception is that Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46, generally addressing allowance allocations, omits 40 CFR 97.811(b)(2) and 97.812(b), concerning EPA's administration of Indian country NUSAs. Omission of these provisions from Alabama's state trading program rules is required, as discussed in section IV.B.9 below.

    The third exception is that Alabama rule 335-3-8-.56, which generally incorporates by reference the federal trading programs' recordation schedule provisions, excludes from incorporation by reference 40 CFR 97.821(a), (b), (h), (i) and (j) concerning EPA's schedule for recording certain allowance allocations. The federal trading program provisions at § 97.821(a) and (b), which address recordation of allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes of allowances for the compliance periods in 2017 and 2018, do not need to be included in Alabama's state trading program rules because those allocations have already been recorded. The federal trading program provision at § 97.821(h), which address recordation of allocations from Indian country NUSAs, are appropriately excluded from state trading programs because a state may not administer an Indian country NUSA. The federal trading program provision at § 97.821(i) and (j), which address recordation of second-round NUSA allocations, are not needed in Alabama's state trading program rules because Alabama would provide EPA the amounts of its NUSA allocations on the earlier schedule applicable to allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes.44 Omission of these provisions from Alabama's state trading programs therefore does not undermine the completeness of the state trading programs.

    44 For the same reason, Alabama's state rules could permissibly omit 40 CFR 97.821(g), which address recordation of first-round NUSA allocations. Note that notwithstanding the lack of provisions addressing recordation of NUSA allocations in Alabama's state trading program rules, EPA would retain authority to complete the recordation of 2017 NUSA allocations to Alabama units because EPA has already started recording allocations to Alabama units of allowances for the compliance periods in 2017. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(11)(i).

    Because none of the omissions undermines the completeness of Alabama's state trading programs and because, as discussed in section IV.B.6 above, EPA has preliminarily determined that Alabama's SIP revision makes no other substantive changes to the provisions of the federal trading program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance allocations, Alabama's SIP revision meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9) that the SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program regulations substantively identical to the complete federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.802 through 97.835, except for permissible differences in allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.

    8. Only Non-Substantive Substitutions for the Term “State”

    Paragraph 335-3-8-.40(1)(a)1 of the Alabama rules substitute the term “the State of Alabama,” and paragraph 335-3-8-.40(1)(b) of the Alabama rules similarly substitute the term “the State” (meaning Alabama), for the phrase “a State (or Indian country within the borders of such State)” in the corresponding federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.810(a)(1) and (b). These provisions of the Alabama rules define the units that are required to participate in Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs. The substitutions appropriately exclude units located in other states and units located in Indian country within the borders of Alabama or any other state, thereby limiting the applicability of Alabama's state trading programs to units that are subject to Alabama's jurisdiction. These substitutions do not substantively change the provisions of CSAPR's federal trading program regulations. The remaining Alabama rules do not substitute for the term “State” as used in the federal trading program regulations. EPA proposes to find that Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(v) that the SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term “State” as used in the federal trading program regulations, but only to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not substantively change the provisions of the federal trading program regulations.

    9. Exclusion of Provisions Addressing Units in Indian Country

    The Alabama rules do not set forth any full text provisions directly addressing units in Indian country within the state's borders. As discussed in section IV.B.8 above, paragraph 335-3-8-.40(1)(a)1 of the Alabama rule define the units required to participate in Alabama's state trading programs in a manner that appropriately excludes units located in Indian country within Alabama's borders from coverage under Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs. Although various other provisions of the CSAPR federal trading program regulations incorporated by reference into the Alabama rules without modification refer to units in Indian country, the clear exclusion of any such units from coverage under the state trading program applicability provisions—in other words, the fact that such units are not “TR NOx Ozone Season Group 2 units” for purposes of the state trading program—renders the remaining provisions of Alabama's state trading program rules inoperative as to the units. EPA therefore interprets the Alabama rules as not imposing any requirements on units located in Indian country within the State's borders.

    As discussed in section IV.B.7 above, Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46, which addresses allowance allocations under the state trading programs, contains no provisions replacing 40 CFR 97.811(b)(2) or 97.812(b), the portions of the federal trading program regulations governing allocations of allowances from Indian country NUSAs. Thus, the Alabama rules do not include any express state rule provisions concerning administration of Indian country NUSAs. Further, Alabama rules 335-3-8-.56, which generally incorporate by reference the federal trading programs' recordation schedule provisions, excludes 40 CFR 97.821(h), addressing recordation of Indian country NUSA allocations. Similarly, paragraph 335-3-8-.46(3)(i) of the Alabama rules, which incorporates by reference the federal trading program regulations generally addressing corrections of incorrect allocations, excludes 40 CFR 97.811(c)(5)(iii), addressing corrections of certain incorrect Indian country NUSA allocations. EPA therefore interprets the Alabama state rules as sufficiently excluding provisions addressing administration of the Indian country NUSA provisions under the federal trading programs.

    In summary, EPA has preliminarily determined that Alabama's SIP revision adequately meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(vi) that a SIP submittal must not impose any requirement on any unit in Indian country within the borders of the State and must exclude certain provisions related to administration of Indian country NUSAs.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference ADEM Administrative Code rules 335-3-8-.39 through 335-3-8-.70, state effective on June 9, 2017, comprising Alabama's TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. EPA's Proposed Action on Alabama's Submittal

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions the Alabama ozone season submittals concerning the establishment for Alabama units of CSAPR state trading programs for ozone season NOX emissions for compliance periods in 2019 and later years. The proposed revision would adopt into the SIP the state trading program rules codified in ADEM Administrative Code rules 335-3-8-.39 through 335-3-8-.70 (establishing Alabama's “TR NOX Ozone Group 2 Trading Program”), as interpreted by the State in the August 5, 2017, clarification letter.45 This Alabama CSAPR state trading program would be integrated with the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program and would be substantively identical to the federal trading program except with regard to the allowance allocation provisions. If EPA approves these portions of the SIP revisions, Alabama units would generally be required to meet requirements under Alabama's CSAPR state trading program equivalent to the requirements the units otherwise would have been required to meet under the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program, but allocations to Alabama units of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances for compliance periods in 2019 and later years would be determined according to the SIP's allocation provisions at Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46 instead of EPA's default allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.811(a), 97.811(b)(1), and 97.812(a). EPA is proposing to approve these portions of the SIP revisions because, as clarified by the State's August 4, 2017, letter, they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a federal trading program with a state trading program that is integrated with and substantively identical to the federal trading program except for permissible differences with respect to emission allowance allocation provisions, as discussed in section IV above.

    45 The Alabama rules use the terms “Transport Rule” and “TR” instead of the updated terms “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” and “CSAPR,” which is permissible under the CSAPR Update. 81 FR at 74579.

    EPA promulgated the FIP provisions requiring Alabama units to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program in order to address Alabama's obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in the absence of SIP provisions addressing those requirements. Under the CSAPR regulations, upon EPA's full and unconditional approval of a SIP revision as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's jurisdiction (but not for any units located in any Indian country within the state's borders).46 Approval of the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal adopting CSAPR state trading program rules for ozone season NOX substantively identical to the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program regulations (or differing only with respect to the allowance allocation methodology) would satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any other state. This proposed approval would also partially satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus, the proposed approval would correct the same deficiency in the SIP that otherwise would be corrected by those CSAPR FIPs. The proposed approval of the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal establishing CSAPR state trading program rules for ozone season NOX emissions therefore would result in automatic termination of the obligations of Alabama units to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program.

    46 40 CFR 52.38(b)(10); see also 40 CFR 52.54(b)(1) & (2).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17341 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0174; FRL-9966-27-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Transportation Conformity AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the portion of a revision to the Alabama State Implementation plan submitted by the State of Alabama on May 8, 2013, for the purpose of amending the transportation conformity rules to be consistent with Federal requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0174 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached 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: August 4, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17239 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389; FRL-9966-16-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; supplemental.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a supplement to its proposed approval of a revision to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of South Carolina through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on December 28, 2012. South Carolina's SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). EPA's proposed approval of South Carolina's Progress Report was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2014. This supplemental proposal addresses the potential effects on EPA's proposed approval from the April 29, 2014, decision of the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for further proceedings and the D.C. Circuit's July 28, 2015, decision on remand.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389 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:

    Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9031 and via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Each state is required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision during the first implementation period that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area (Class I area) 1 within the state and in each mandatory Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. The first progress report is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan.

    1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.

    SC DHEC submitted its first regional haze plan on December 17, 2007, and submitted its Progress Report on December 28, 2012. The Progress Report and accompanying cover letter included a determination that South Carolina's existing regional haze plan requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA proposed to find that the State's Progress Report satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 17, 2014 (79 FR 3147). Today's notice supplements that 2014 NPRM by more fully explaining and soliciting comment on the basis for the Agency's proposed approval as it relates to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR.

    II. Summary of South Carolina's Progress Report and EPA's 2014 NPRM

    In accordance with requirements in EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR), South Carolina's Progress Report describes the progress made towards the RPGs of Class I areas in and outside South Carolina that are affected by emissions from South Carolina's sources.2 See 40 CFR 51.308(g). This Progress Report also included an assessment of whether South Carolina's existing regional haze plan is sufficient to allow it and other nearby states with Class I areas to achieve their RPGs by the end of the first implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). In the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to approve the State's Progress Report as adequately addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). EPA's proposed conclusions in the 2014 NPRM regarding South Carolina's Progress Report are briefly summarized below.

    2 EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR, on July 1, 1999. See 64 FR 35713. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017. See 82 FR 3078.

    South Carolina's Progress Report included a description of the status of measures in its regional haze plan; a summary of the emissions reductions achieved; an assessment of the visibility conditions for Cape Romain Wilderness Area, the only Class I area in the State; an analysis of the changes in emissions from sources and activities within the State; an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have limited or impeded visibility improvement progress in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources; an assessment of the sufficiency of the regional haze plan to enable South Carolina and states affected by South Carolina's sources to meet the RPGs for their Class I areas; and a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy. As explained in the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to find that South Carolina's Progress Report adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g).

    In addition, South Carolina simultaneously submitted a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h) that its regional haze plan is sufficient to enable the State and states affected by South Carolina's sources to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by South Carolina's sources. The State also declared that further revision of the existing regional haze plan was not needed at that time. As explained in detail in the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to determine that South Carolina had adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because visibility has improved at Cape Romain; sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the State's sources have decreased beyond original projections; 3 additional electric generating unit (EGU) control measures not relied upon in the State's regional haze plan have occurred or will occur in the implementation period; and the SO2 emissions from EGUs in South Carolina are already below the levels projected for 2018 in the regional haze plan and are expected to continue to trend downward, as will the SO2 emissions from EGUs in the other VISTAS states. In the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to approve South Carolina's Progress Report SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

    3 In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, South Carolina focused its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because the regional planning organization, the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), determined that sulfates accounted for more than 70 percent of the visibility-impairing pollution in the Southeast and that SO2 point source emissions in 2018 represent more than 95 percent of the total SO2 emissions inventory. In its Progress Report, South Carolina states that sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Cape Romain.

    III. Impact of CAIR and CSAPR on South Carolina's Progress Report

    Decisions by the courts regarding EPA rules addressing the interstate transport of pollutants have had a substantial impact on EPA's review of the regional haze plans of many states. In 2005, EPA issued regulations allowing states to rely on CAIR to meet certain requirements of the RHR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).4 Like many other states subject to CAIR, South Carolina relied on CAIR in its regional haze plan to meet certain requirements of the RHR, including the criteria for alternatives to the best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from certain EGUs in the State. This reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). However, in 2008, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by the rule. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.5 Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.

    4 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states, including South Carolina, that contributed to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and/or the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).

    5 CSAPR requires 27 Eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide budgets for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOx by each covered state's large EGUs.

    On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38509), EPA finalized a limited approval of South Carolina's regional haze plan addressing the first implementation period for regional haze. In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of regional haze plans from South Carolina and several other states because these plans relied on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements, and also amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.6 See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). In that same June 7, 2012, action, EPA also finalized FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of several states, including South Carolina's regional haze plan.

    6 Legal challenges to the CSAPR Better-than-BART rule from state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012).

    Following these EPA actions, however, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on CSAPR and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling.7 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets for a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget and ozone-season NOX budget for South Carolina. The CSAPR litigation ultimately delayed implementation of the rule for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets, originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, took effect on January 1, 2017.

    7 After the Supreme Court's decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion. Order of October 23, 2014, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302. EPA subsequently issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA would implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit's order lifting the stay and tolling the rule's deadlines. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking). Pursuant to the interim final rulemaking, EPA began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.

    On May 26, 2017, South Carolina submitted a draft SIP revision for parallel processing that adopts provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs, including annual NOX and annual SO2 budgets that are equal to the budgets for South Carolina in EPA's CSAPR FIP. EPA signed a NPRM on July 28, 2017 proposing to approve the SIP revision. As approval of that SIP revision would eliminate South Carolina's remanded federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget, it is EPA's opinion that finalization of approval of that action would address the judicial remand of South Carolina's federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget.8

    8 On September 7, 2016, EPA finalized an update to the CSAPR ozone-season program. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The update addresses summertime transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States that crosses state lines to help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and addresses the remanded Phase 2 ozone season NOX budgets. The update withdraws the remanded ozone-season NOX budgets, sets new Phase 2 CSAPR ozone season NOX emissions budgets for eight of the eleven states with remanded budgets, and removes the other three states from the CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program.

    CAIR was in effect at the time that South Carolina submitted its Progress Report on December 28, 2012, and the State included an assessment of the emission reductions from the implementation of CAIR in its report. South Carolina's Progress Report discussed the status of the litigation concerning CAIR and CSAPR, but because CSAPR was not at that time in effect, South Carolina did not take actual emissions reductions from CSAPR into account in assessing its regional haze plan. For the same reason, in the 2014 NPRM, EPA did not assess at that time the impact of CSAPR nor the CSAPR FIP on the abilities of South Carolina and its neighbors to meet their RPGs.

    The purpose of this supplemental proposal is to seek comment on the effect of the D.C. Circuit's 2015 decision on the Agency's assessment of South Carolina's Progress Report and the State's determination that its existing regional haze plan need not be revised at this time. Given the complex background summarized above, EPA is proposing to determine that South Carolina appropriately took CAIR into account in its Progress Report. CAIR was in effect during the 2007-2011 period addressed by South Carolina's Progress Report. EPA approved South Carolina's regulations implementing CAIR as part of the South Carolina SIP on October 16, 2009 (74 FR 53167), and at the time of submission of its Progress Report, neither South Carolina nor EPA had taken any action to remove CAIR from the South Carolina SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2120(c). Therefore, EPA proposes to find that South Carolina appropriately evaluated and relied on CAIR reductions to demonstrate the State's progress towards meeting its RPGs.

    The State's Progress Report also demonstrated that Class I areas in other states impacted by South Carolina sources were on track to meet their RPGs as discussed in the 2014 NPRM. See 79 FR 3151. EPA's intention in requiring the progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) was to ensure that emission management measures in the regional haze plans are being implemented on schedule and that visibility improvement appears to be consistent with the RPGs. See 64 FR 35713, 35747 (July 1, 1999). CAIR was in effect in South Carolina through 2014, providing the emission reductions relied upon in South Carolina's regional haze plan. Thus, EPA is proposing to determine that South Carolina appropriately took into account CAIR reductions in assessing the implementation of measures in the regional haze plan for the 2007-2011 timeframe, and EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes of assessing the adequacy of South Carolina's Progress Report demonstrating progress during this timeframe because CAIR remained effective and provided the requisite emission reductions.

    In addition, EPA also believes that reliance upon CAIR reductions to show South Carolina's progress towards meeting its RPGs from 2007-2011 is consistent with the Agency's prior actions. During the continued implementation of CAIR per the direction of the D.C. Circuit through October 2014, EPA approved redesignations of areas to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in which states relied on CAIR as an “enforceable measure.” See 77 FR 76415 (December 28, 2012) (redesignation of Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia); 78 FR 59841 (September 30, 2013) (redesignation of Wheeling, West Virginia); and 78 FR 56168 (September 12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, West Virginia). While EPA did previously state in a rulemaking action on the Florida regional haze plan that a five-year progress report may be the appropriate time to address changes, if necessary, for RPG demonstrations and long term strategies, EPA does not believe that the implementation of CSAPR impacts the adequacy of the South Carolina regional haze plan to address reasonable progress from 2007 through 2011 or to meet requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) because CAIR was implemented during the time period evaluated by South Carolina for its Progress Report. See generally 77 FR 73369, 73371 (December 10, 2012) (proposed action on the Florida regional haze plan).

    EPA's December 3, 2014, interim final rule sunset CAIR compliance requirements on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR compliance requirements. Because CSAPR should result in greater emissions reductions of SO2 and NOX than CAIR throughout the affected region, including in South Carolina and neighboring states, EPA expects South Carolina to maintain and continue its progress towards its RPGs for 2018 through continued, and additional, SO2 and NOX reductions. See generally August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208) (promulgating CSAPR). Although the implementation of CSAPR was tolled for three years, the Rule is now being implemented, and by 2018, the endpoint for calculating RPGs for the first regional haze implementation period, CSAPR will reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs in South Carolina by the same amount assumed by EPA when it issued the CSAPR FIP for South Carolina in June 2012. See 76 FR 48208 (CSAPR promulgation), and 77 FR 33642 (limited disapproval of South Carolina regional haze plan and FIP for South Carolina for certain regional haze requirements).

    At the present time, the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in South Carolina under the terms of a FIP. If EPA approves South Carolina's May 26, 2017, SIP revision that incorporates the CSAPR requirements into its SIP, the requirements of CSAPR for annual NOX and SO2 emissions will apply to sources in the State through its SIP at budget levels equal to those in the CSAPR FIP. The RHR requires an assessment of whether the current “implementation plan” is sufficient to enable the states to meet all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term “implementation plan” is defined for purposes of the RHR to mean “any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.” See 40 CFR 51.301. EPA is, therefore, proposing to determine that the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those in a state's regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the “existing implementation plan” under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because CSAPR will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX emissions reductions relied upon by South Carolina and other states in setting their RPGs beginning in January 2015 at least through the remainder of the first implementation period in 2018, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's finding that there is no need for revision of the existing implementation plan for South Carolina to achieve the RPGs for Cape Romain and the Class I areas impacted by South Carolina sources.

    EPA notes that the RHR provides for periodic evaluation and assessment of a state's reasonable progress towards achieving the national goal of natural visibility conditions under the CAA section 169A(b). The regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 required states to submit initial SIPs in 2007 providing for reasonable progress towards the national goal for the first implementation period from 2008 through 2018. See 40 CFR 51.308(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), SIP revisions reassessing each state's reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal are due by July 31, 2021, July 31, 2028, and every ten years thereafter. For such subsequent regional haze plans, 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires each state to reassess its reasonable progress and all the elements of its regional haze plan required by 40 CFR 51.308(d), taking into account improvements in monitors and control technology, assessing the state's actual progress and effectiveness of its long term strategy, and revising RPGs as necessary. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)-(3). Therefore, South Carolina has the opportunity to reassess its RPGs and the adequacy of its regional haze plan, including its reliance first upon CAIR and now upon CSAPR for emission reductions from EGUs, when it prepares and submits its second regional haze plan to cover the implementation period from 2018 through 2028. As discussed in the 2014 NPRM and in South Carolina's Progress Report, emissions of SO2 from EGUs are below original projections for 2018. In addition, the visibility data provided by South Carolina show that Cape Romain is currently on track to achieve its RPGs.

    IV. Summary of Reproposal

    In summary, EPA proposes to approve South Carolina's Progress Report. EPA solicits comments on this supplemental proposal, but only with respect to the specific issues raised in this notice concerning the Agency's interpretation of the term “implementation plan” in the RHR, and EPA's proposed agreement with South Carolina's assessment that the current regional haze plan for South Carolina, in combination with EPA's CSAPR FIP or an approved CSAPR SIP, need not be revised at this time to achieve the established RPGs for South Carolina and other impacted states in light of the status of CAIR through 2014 and CSAPR starting in 2015. EPA is not reopening the comment period on any other aspect of the January 17, 2014, NPRM as an adequate opportunity to comment on those issues has already been provided. The purpose of this supplemental proposal is limited to review of South Carolina's Progress Report in light of the D.C. Circuit's 2015 ruling on CSAPR. This supplemental proposal reflects EPA's desire for public input into how it should proceed in light of this decision when acting on the State's pending Progress Report, in particular the requirements that the State assess whether the current implementation plan is sufficient to ensure that RPGs are met. See 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).9

    9 EPA previously determined that CSAPR (like CAIR before it) was “better than BART” because it would achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national goal than would source-specific BART. See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). EPA is not taking comment in this supplemental proposal on whether the South Carolina regional haze plan meets the BART requirements or whether CSAPR is an alternative measure to source-specific BART in accordance with 40 CFR 52.301(e)(2).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 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 Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

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

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

    • does not contain any unfunded mandates 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 Act; and

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

    In addition, this proposed rule for South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the state of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 4, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17222 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0359; FRL-9966-48-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Minor Source Permit Program Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to South Carolina's State Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise minor new source review (NSR) regulations. EPA is proposing to approve portions of SIP revisions modifying these regulations as submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on the following dates: October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2016. This action is being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0359 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2016, SC DHEC submitted SIP revisions to EPA for approval that involve changes to South Carolina's minor source permitting regulations to clarify and streamline the State's federally-approved preconstruction and operating permitting program. This program requires minor stationary sources planning to construct or modify sources of air pollutants to first obtain a construction permit and to obtain and maintain operating permits in accordance with the South Carolina Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. Code Ann. Regs.) at Regulation 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements.” The portion of the SIP-approved permitting program covering construction permits is generally referred to as the minor source permitting program or the minor NSR program to distinguish it from additional permitting requirements for major sources of air pollutants.1 The portion of the SIP-approved permitting program covering minor source operating permits is referred to as the federally enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) program. The changes made in these submittals clarify the applicability, streamline the permitting process, provide more options for the minor source permitting program, and generally reduce the overall burden on the state permitting program and the regulated community. The changes addressed in this proposed rulemaking also correct typographical errors, make internal references consistent, and recodify sections of the existing rules. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve certain portions of these SIP submissions that make changes to South Carolina's minor NSR regulations and FESOP requirements.

    1 EPA's regulations governing the implementation of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.160-.166; 52.21, .24; and part 51, Appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed of three separate programs: prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), nonattainment new source review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies to major stationary sources in areas that meet the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)—“attainment areas”—as well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable areas.” The NNSR program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies to major stationary sources in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR program applies to stationary sources that do not require PSD or NNSR permits. Together, these programs are referred to as the NSR programs.

    EPA is not acting on a portion of the revisions to Regulation 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements.” Specifically, EPA is not acting on the renumbering and minor administrative language changes to paragraph G.6.—“Emergency Provisions,” in the October 1, 2007, submittal, nor the minor additional language changes to this portion of the minor source permitting regulations included in the August 8, 2014, submittal.2

    2 In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove revisions to any existing emission limitations that apply during start up, shut down and malfunction events.

    At this time, EPA is not acting on the following changes included in the October 1, 2007, submittal: Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries”; and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2—“Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).”

    EPA is also not acting on changes in the July 18, 2011, submittal to the following regulations in South Carolina's SIP: Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions”; Regulation 61-62.3—“Air Pollution Episodes”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1—“Emissions from Fuel Burning Operations”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 6—“Alternative Emission Limitation Options (Bubble)”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7—“Prevention of Significant Deterioration”; and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1—“Nonattainment New Source Review.” EPA approved the changes to Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2—“Ambient Air Quality Standards,” included in the July 18, 2011, submittal, on April 3, 2013 (78 FR 19994).

    EPA is not acting on the changes included in the June 17, 2013, submittal to the following regulations: Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions”; Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV—“Source Tests”; Regulation 61-62.3—“Air Pollution Episodes”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries”; and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5—“Volatile Organic Compounds.”

    Additionally, EPA is not acting on the changes included in the August 8, 2014, submittal to the following regulations: Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions”; Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV—“Source Tests”; Regulation 61-62.1, Section V—“Credible Evidence”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1—“Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment”; and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries.” EPA approved the changes to Regulation 61-62.1, Section III—“Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statement,” included in the August 8, 2014, submittal, on June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33413) and May 31, 2017 (82 FR 24851).

    EPA is also not acting on the changes included in the January 20, 2016, submittal to the following regulations: Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5—“Volatile Organic Compounds”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1—“Nonattainment New Source Review”; and Regulation 61-62.6—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter.”

    Finally, EPA is not acting on the changes included in the July 27, 2016, submittal to the following regulations: Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries”; and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2—“Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).” EPA will address these remaining changes to the South Carolina SIP in separate actions.

    II. Analysis of State's Submittal A. Overview of Changes to Section II—“Permit Requirements”

    South Carolina has a SIP-approved minor source permitting program at Regulation 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements.” These regulations include requirements for obtaining preconstruction and operating permits for different types of minor sources. The program covers “true minor” sources, which have the potential to emit (PTE) of certain pollutants below major sources thresholds for new sources and modifications. The SIP-approved minor source permitting program also includes provisions for issuing permits that establish federally enforceable emission limits to restrict the PTE of certain pollutants below major source and major modification applicability thresholds: “synthetic minor” permits establish these limits for sources obtaining construction permits, and “conditional major” permits establish these emission limits in the corresponding operating permits. South Carolina initially revised its minor NSR and FESOP rules in the October 1, 2007, submittal to clarify and streamline requirements for obtaining minor source construction and operating permits. The July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2017, submittals make other clarifying and administrative changes, which are discussed for each subsection of the regulation below.

    EPA has reviewed the proposed changes to the minor source construction and operating permitting regulations and preliminarily finds them to be consistent with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l), EPA's minor NSR regulations found at 40 CFR 51.160—164, and the criteria applicable to an approvable State FESOP program.

    B. Analysis of Changes to Each Section 1. Section II.A.—“Construction Permits”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.A—“Construction Permits” specifies applicability and certain requirements for obtaining permits for sources seeking to construct or modify emissions units. The October 1, 2007, submittal makes several changes to paragraph A. as follows: (1) Adds allowed preconstruction activities at subparagraph A.1.d. for true minor sources (i.e., minor sources that are not synthetic minor sources); (2) adds the requirement that written notification be provided to the Department marking the commencement of construction and initial startup; (3) adds language requiring compliance with all terms, limits, and conditions of Department-issued construction permits; (4) adds time constraints for the validity of issued construction permits; and (5) removes the descriptions of permit application requirements from former paragraph A.2. to create a standalone subsection C. for construction permits, and to detail more specific requirements for other types of permits in other paragraphs.

    The July 18, 2011, submittal makes subsequent clarifying and administrative changes to Section II.A., consolidating former subparagraph A.1.a. and paragraph A.5. into an introductory paragraph applicable to the entirety of Regulation 61-62.1, Section II. The submittal also makes other renumbering and administrative edits to the remaining subparagraphs.

    The language moved to an introductory paragraph for Section II states: (1) The regulation will not supersede any state or federal requirements nor special permit conditions unless it imposes a more restrictive limit; (2) sources must comply with all terms, conditions, and limitations of any permit issued by SC DHEC for sources or activities at its facility; and (3) a source's permit status may change if new regulatory requirements become applicable. The effect of moving this language from subsection A. is to clarify that it is applicable to all of Section II—meaning it applies to any types of permits issued by the SC DHEC rather than only construction permits.

    The August 8, 2014, submittal further modifies Section II.A. by making administrative edits and adding additional allowed preconstruction activities for true minor sources at subparagraph A.1.c, originally added in the October 1, 2007, submittal as subparagraph A.1.d.

    The revision to subparagraph A.1.c.—added to the Regulation as A.1.d. in the October 1, 2007, submittal, renumbered in the July 18, 2011, submittal, and updated in the August 8, 2014, submittal—allows certain preconstruction activities prior to obtaining a final construction permit, provided that specific conditions are met. EPA has preliminarily determined that the preconstruction activities provision is consistent with the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l), and federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.160—51.164.

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires that state SIPs include a program for regulating the construction and modification of stationary sources as necessary to ensure that the NAAQS are maintained. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.160(b) require states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Federal regulations limit the types of allowed preconstruction activities for new and modified major sources at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xv), 51.166(b)(11), and 52.21(b)(11) and, as discussed below, South Carolina has adopted these provisions into its SIP. But federal regulations do not impose a corresponding limitation on preconstruction activities for minor sources. SC DHEC provided additional clarification of its allowed minor source preconstruction activities in a December 30, 2016, letter, which is included in the Docket for this proposed action. In this letter, SC DHEC first explains that “[a]llowed preconstruction activities are extremely limited in nature and do not include construction of that actual process unit itself.” The State also points to a requirement under Section II.C.3.n. that sources applying for construction permits demonstrate emissions will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. This requirement corresponds to Section II.A.2. of the Regulation, which states that permits will not be issued if emissions interfere with any state or federal standard.

    SC DHEC also points to its memorandum regarding allowed preconstruction activities for major sources prior to obtaining PSD permits.3 SC DHEC notes that its minor source preconstruction activities provisions mirror the federal limits on major source preconstruction activities, with the exception of one additional activity: Allowing a facility to pour concrete foundation prior to obtaining a construction permit. This activity is only prohibited for major sources or major modifications prior to obtaining a permit in accordance with the definition of “begin actual construction” in the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(11) and 52.21(b)(11), and the NNSR regulations at 51.165(a)(1)(xv). As SC DHEC explains in its clarifying letter, Section II.A.1.c.—which specifies which sources may engage in preconstruction activities—explicitly excludes “sources not requesting to use federally enforceable construction permit conditions to limit potential to emit, sources not subject to regulations with more stringent start of construction limitations, or sources not otherwise exempt from permit requirements.” In other words, the regulation excludes, among other sources, major sources subject to PSD regulations or CAA section 112 requirements for hazardous air pollutants (i.e., major sources and modifications).

    3 This memorandum is also included in the Docket for this proposed action.

    In its December 30, 2016 letter, SC DHEC references Section II.A.1.d., which clearly states that the owners or operators of any sources that would not qualify for the issuance of a construction permit assume the financial risk of commencing the preconstruction activities listed in Section II.A.1.c. SC DHEC also notes that a source could be subject to an enforcement action under Section II.F.2. and Section II.J.1.e.—or subject to permit revocation under Section II.J.1.b—if the source either did not comply with the regulations during construction or would not have qualified for the preconstruction activities undertaken.

    Because SC DHEC does not allow for the construction of process units, there are no increased emissions associated with any of the preconstruction activities allowed at Section II.A.1.c.i.-xvii. The gatekeeping applicability language at Section II.A.1.c. and major NSR applicability provisions at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7(a)(2) and Standard No. 7.1(a)(1), provide that no major sources or modifications may engage in the preconstruction activities allowed under Section II.A.1.c.i.-xvii. Additionally, SC DHEC does not allow synthetic minor sources to conduct the preconstruction activities. Finally, SC DHEC has legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(b).

    The changes to South Carolina's minor NSR program are not inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations, and are therefore approvable as part of the SIP. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to subsection A. and the introductory portion of Section II pursuant to the CAA and 40 CFR 51.160-164.

    2. Section II.B.—“Exemptions From the Requirement To Obtain a Construction Permit”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.B.—“Exemptions from the Requirement to Obtain a Construction Permit” specifies which types of minor sources are exempt from obtaining minor source construction permits. The October 1, 2007, submittal makes several changes to subsection II.B. as follows: (1) Renumbers existing Section II.F. to Section II.B. and modifies the title to clarify that the paragraph applies only to construction permits; (2) adds language specifying that future source modifications or new regulatory requirements may trigger the need to obtain a permit for exempted facilities; (3) clarifies that the exemption for boilers and space heaters applies to those firing virgin solid and liquid fuels; (4) adds an exemption for boilers and space heaters firing only virgin gas fuels rated 10 million British thermal units per hour or less; (5) modifies the number of hours for testing and maintenance for exempted emergency generators; (6) modifies subparagraph B.2.h. to exempt additional sources with emissions less than the threshold of 1 pound per hour (lb/hr) PTE of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide; (7) adds the requirement for SC DHEC to periodically publish a list of sources exempted from the construction permit requirement under subparagraphs B.2.a.-g.—and any other sources determined to qualify for permit exemptions based on subparagraph B.2.h.—in the South Carolina State Register; (8) adds procedures for sources requesting exemption from obtaining a construction permit under paragraph B.2. or paragraph B.4.; (9) adds paragraph B.6. to provide that exemptions under Section II.B. do not relieve the owner or operator of any source from any obligation to comply with any other applicable requirements; and (10) makes other administrative changes and adds references throughout subsection B.

    The July 18, 2011, submittal makes subsequent revisions to clarify requirements and qualifications at Section II.B., as follows: (1) Adds language to subparagraph B.2.h. to require that emissions calculations or other information necessary to demonstrate a source qualifies for the exemption must be kept on site and provided to SC DHEC upon request; (2) revises language in paragraph B.3. to clarify that source types which are added to the list of exempted sources will be determined not to interfere with attainment or maintenance of any state or federal standard; (3) adds language stating that SC DHEC reserves the right to require a construction permit on a case-by-case basis, and that case-by-case determinations will consider, but not be limited to, “the nature and amount of the pollutants, location, proximity to residences and commercial establishments, etc.”; and (4) makes administrative edits to existing language.

    Finally, the August 8, 2014, submittal makes additional changes to paragraph II.B., including: (1) Administrative edits to the title of the paragraph and to references and subparagraphs throughout; (2) revises the PTE criteria in subparagraph B.2.h. to a 5 ton per year (tpy) threshold rather than 1 lb/hr, and adds language to state that sources with higher PTE may be exempted under this subparagraph if they demonstrate that they are not subject to any applicable state or federal limits or requirements; (3) amends paragraph B.3. to include language asserting that SC DHEC may develop emission thresholds for exemption that are determined will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of state or federal standards to include in the list maintained pursuant to this paragraph, and that SC DHEC could be petitioned to consider adding additional sources to this list; and (4) adds paragraph B.5. stating that sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with a PTE greater than the emission threshold listed in subparagraph B.2.h. may be exempted from the requirement to obtain a construction permit on a case-by-case basis, and that exempt sources may later be required to be included in construction or operating permits.

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires that SIPs include a program for regulating the construction and modification of stationary sources as necessary to ensure that the NAAQS are maintained. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.160(e) require that states identify the types and sizes of sources subject to review and the basis for determining which sources are subject. Additionally, CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA shall not approve a revision to 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 CAA. SC DHEC has determined that specific sources listed at paragraphs B.1. and B.2. do not require permits because their size is not such that they are expected to interfere with attainment or maintenance of state or federal standards, including reasonable further progress.

    SC DHEC's December 30, 2016, letter provides additional clarification for certain changes made to Section II.B. Subparagraph B.2.f. extends the testing and maintenance operation threshold for exempting emergency generators from 250 hours to 500 hours per year. SC DHEC considered CAA section 110(l), and asserts that the state expects no increase in actual emissions as a result of raising this exemption threshold. SC DHEC explains that the 500 hours per year threshold is commonly used to determine the PTE for title V and other major source applicability determinations, consistent with an EPA guidance memorandum.4 These sources are still restricted to emergency conditions, meaning that other types of non-emergency activities—such as peak shaving—would not qualify for the exemption under paragraph II.B. Additionally, SC DHEC points to applicable federal requirements for emergency generators at 40 CFR part 63 at subpart ZZZZ and 40 CFR part 60 at subparts IIII and JJJJ to restrict non-emergency use of these sources to 100 hours per year. Therefore, this change to subparagraph B.2.f. will not result in any real increase in emissions and therefore will not affect the state's ability to attain or maintain state or federal standards or reasonable further progress. The State also has the discretion to define the scope of its minor NSR program pursuant to 40 CFR 51.160(e).

    4 Seitz, John S. “Calculating Potential to Emit (PTE) for Emergency Generators.” Memorandum to Program Directors in EPA Regional Offices, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC (September 6, 1995).

    SC DHEC in its letter also addresses changes made to subparagraph II.B.h. potentially allowing certain sources with PTE exceeding the thresholds of this subparagraph to be exempt from the requirement to obtain a construction permit. SC DHEC asserts that this provision is primarily intended to apply to sources with PTE only slightly above the thresholds in subparagraph II.B.h. SC DHEC notes the safeguards built into the language that sources subject to any applicable requirements are not exempt from obtaining construction permits. The letter then steps through an example of the process that small sources of VOC emissions would undergo, including an assessment of any potentially applicable requirements related to NAAQS, toxics, or hazardous air pollutants; consideration of the PTE relative to major source thresholds; and any other special considerations. SC DHEC determines the applicability of construction permits for these sources under close scrutiny on a case-by-case basis. This process in determining which types and sizes of sources need to undergo preconstruction review and permitting, afforded the State pursuant 40 CFR 51.160(e), is sufficient to protect the NAAQS and prevent interference with reasonable further progress, consistent with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    SC DHEC's change to paragraph II.B.3. notes that SC DHEC may develop emission thresholds for exemptions that are not determined not to interfere with attainment or maintenance or any state or federal standard. EPA understands this language to reflect SC DHEC's flexibility for determining which types and sizes of sources need to undergo preconstruction review and permitting pursuant 40 CFR 51.160(e), and understands that these thresholds would need to be in the SIP, similar to Subparagraph II.B.h. The compiled list is available on SC DHEC's Web site.5 EPA preliminarily agrees that SC DHEC clearly lays out the types and sizes of sources of interest for preconstruction review, and also the reasonable process by which case-by-case determinations are made to exempt sources with emissions above the thresholds in subparagraph B.2.h., but less than any thresholds for other applicable requirements like major NSR. EPA also preliminarily agrees that this portion of South Carolina's minor NSR program does not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or other applicable CAA requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to approve changes to the SIP made to Section II.B. pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l), as well as 40 CFR 51.160-164.

    5 The latest compiled list of exempted sources was updated as of December 2016: http://www.scdhec.gov/Environment/docs/NewExemptions.pdf.

    3. Section II.C.—“Construction Permit Applications”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.C—“Construction Permit Applications,” specifies the requirements for sources applying for and obtaining construction permits. The October 1, 2007, submittal makes several changes to subsection C. as follows: (1) Renumbers former paragraph A.2. to standalone subsection C and changes the title to specify that the requirements apply to construction permit applications; (2) makes administrative edits, including renumbering; (3) adds paragraph C.3. to reference SC DHEC forms which were created to ease the permit application process; and (4) renumbers former subparagraphs B.2.a.-g. to C.3.a.-p., reformatting and clarifying what information may be required in addition to the SC DHEC forms, including more specific process, chemical, and emissions information used to determine PTE, an air quality analysis demonstrating protection of the NAAQS, and a regulatory applicability determination.

    The July 18, 2011, submittal further modifies Section II.C. at subparagraphs C.3.c.-d. to make administrative edits. South Carolina's August 8, 2014, submittal makes additional administrative and clarifying edits. The January 20, 2016, submittal also makes minor administrative edits. Finally, the July 27, 2016, submittal makes one change to subparagraph C.2.m. to clarify that scale drawings of the facility must include buildings that might affect dispersion of emissions.

    EPA has reviewed the changes made to the construction permit application requirements and is proposing to approve them into the SIP, pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    4. Section II.D.—“General Construction Permits”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.D.—“General Construction Permits” provides regulations by which SC DHEC can issue general construction permits for similar sources. South Carolina's October 1, 2007, submittal adds these provisions to the minor NSR program for construction permits to facilitate the permitting process for similar sources qualifying for and applying for coverage under permits with general terms and conditions. The purpose of this general permitting minor NSR program is to protect the NAAQS while simplifying the permitting process for similar sources. The general construction permits paragraph provides for the following: (1) General permits will incorporate all applicable requirements for construction of similar sources and identify the criteria by which sources can qualify for the permit; (2) sources can submit construction permit applications to SC DHEC that include requests for coverage under the general permit, and sources later determined not to qualify for the general permit are subject to enforcement; (3) approval to operate under a permit is a final permit action for the purposes of judicial review; (4) the permit application can deviate from the provisions of Section II.C. if enough information is included to determine the source's qualification for the general permit; and (5) sources qualifying for general permits are able to apply for individual construction permits in lieu of coverage under the general permit.

    The August 8, 2014, submittal makes administrative and clarifying edits to subsection II.D. throughout. EPA has reviewed the changes made to the minor NSR permitting program and is proposing to approve them into the SIP, pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    6. Section II.E.—“Synthetic Minor Construction Permits”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.E.—“Synthetic Minor Construction Permits” specifies requirements for obtaining construction permits with federally enforceable emissions limits to restrict PTE for sources. South Carolina's October 1, 2007, submittal revises the paragraph for synthetic minor sources as follows: (1) Renumbers subsection II.H. to subsection II.E.; (2) makes administrative and clarifying amendments to the title and throughout the paragraph to clearly indicate that this paragraph pertains to construction permits and to update references; (3) removes former subparagraphs II.2.c.-f. as these requirements are now redundant and covered by other portions of subsection E. or Section II; (4) adds paragraph E.3. to list required synthetic minor permit conditions; (5) adds administrative language to make applications for general synthetic minor construction permits consistent with other construction permit applications; and (6) adds paragraph E.5. to list additional requirements for synthetic minor construction permit applications relative to other minor construction permit applications.

    The August 8, 2014, submittal makes changes to subsection II.E. to update administrative language and references throughout the paragraph. The July 27, 2016, submittal also makes administrative edits to subparagraph E.2.b. EPA has reviewed the changes made to the requirements covering synthetic minor construction permits and is proposing to approve them into the SIP, pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l), and 40 CFR 51.160-164.

    7. Section II.F.—“Operating Permits”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.F.—“Operating Permits” specifies requirements for obtaining minor source operating permits. South Carolina's October 1, 2007, submittal makes several changes to subsection II.F. to clarify and add requirements, including: (1) Renumbering subsection II.B. to II.F.; (2) adding paragraph F.1. to require sources to record the actual date of initial startup and submit it to SC DHEC; (3) adding paragraph F.2. to require certification that construction was completed in accordance with the specifications of the construction permit, to require any variances from the construction permit to be addressed, and to assert that construction variances which would trigger new requirements will be considered construction without a permit; (4) adding language to clarify that title V sources may comply with the Section II.F operating permit requirements by submitting a permit modification request under 61-62.70.7(e) ; (5) adding language to clarify that the existing requirement to provide a written request to SC DHEC for a new or revised operating permit applies to minor sources and those major sources not yet covered by a title V permit; (6) adding subparagraph F.3.c. to specify that the written request for a new or revised operating permit must include a list of sources put into operation and the actual initial startup dates for those sources; (7) making other administrative edits throughout the paragraph; and (8) moving paragraph B.2. regarding permit renewals to a standalone subsection II.H.

    The August 8, 2014 and July 27, 2016, submittals make administrative changes to Section II.F.—“Operating Permits.” EPA has reviewed the changes made to the existing SIP requirements for applying for an operating permit and is proposing to approve them into the SIP, pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    38. Section II.G.—“Conditional Major Operating Permits”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.G.—“Conditional Major Operating Permits” specifies requirements for obtaining operating permits with federally enforceable emissions limits to restrict PTE for sources. South Carolina's October 1, 2007, submittal makes several changes to subsection II.G. to clarify applicability and requirements as follows: (1) Adds language to specify that paragraph II.G. applies to sources requesting federally enforceable limits to restrict PTE below major source thresholds; (2) adds language to specify that sources which received synthetic minor construction permits and that are not subject to title V will receive conditional major operating permits; (3) adds permit shield language to note that if the renewal request is submitted pursuant to paragraph II.H., conditional major sources can operate under the most recent conditional major permit until SC DHEC processes the renewal request; (4) adds language to note that the written request provided by new sources needs to include any additional information specified in subparagraph G.5.; (5) adds language and clarifies existing language to note that the permit conditions, including special conditions to verify compliance with operational and emissions limits, are located at subsection II.J.; (6) modifies existing language to specify additional requirements for conditional major operating permit applications only; (7) removes requirements pertaining to construction permit application requirements because subsections II.C. and II.E. otherwise cover these requirements; (8) removes requirements pertaining to standard operating permit applications because those are otherwise covered by subsection II.F.; (9) adds language to specify that the general information requirements in construction permit applications at paragraph C.3. also apply to conditional major operating permits; and (10) makes other administrative language changes throughout the paragraph.

    The July 18, 2011, August 8, 2014, and July 27, 2016, submittals make additional administrative changes to subsection II.G. EPA has reviewed the changes made to SC DHEC's conditional major source program, which is a portion of the FESOP minor source program, and agrees that the revisions made to subsection II.G. clarify the requirements for obtaining conditional major operating permits. Further, EPA has determined that the conditional operating permit program remains consistent with the criteria for approving FESOP programs.6 Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve these changes into the SIP pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    6 EPA approved SC DHEC's FESOP program on December 11, 1995 (60 FR 63434).

    9. Section II.H.—“Operating Permit Renewal Request”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.H.—“Operating Permit Renewal Request” specifies requirements for renewing operating permits for minor sources. South Carolina's October 1, 2007, submittal makes several changes to subsection II.H. to clarify applicability and requirements as follows: (1) Renumbers former paragraph B.2. to make a standalone subsection at II.H.; (2) adds paragraph H.1. to clarify that operating permits must be renewed through a written request; (3) adds paragraph H.2. to clarify that subsection II.H does not apply to title V sources; (4) adds language to specify that sources must submit permit renewal requests no later than 90 days prior to expiration of the existing operating permit; (5) revises language to expand the type of information needed to verify special permit conditions; (6) adds language to require more specific information in the renewal request, including changes in the source information required for construction permits under paragraph C.3.; and (7) makes administrative language changes throughout the paragraph.

    The July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, and July 27, 2016, submittals make several administrative edits and correct typographical errors throughout subsection II.H. EPA has reviewed the changes made to the operating permit renewal requirements and believes these changes are more specific and help to ensure SC DHEC has the best information possible when evaluating renewal requests. EPA has also preliminarily determined that the changes will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or other applicable CAA requirements. EPA is therefore proposing to approve these changes into the SIP, pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    10. Section II.I.—“Registration Permits”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.I.—“Registration Permits” provides regulations by which SC DHEC can issue registration permits, covering the construction and operation of similar sources. South Carolina's October 1, 2007, submittal adds these provisions to the minor source construction and operating permitting program to facilitate the permitting process for similar true minor sources qualifying for and applying for coverage permits for specific source categories. The purpose of this registration permitting minor source program is to protect the NAAQS while simplifying the permitting process for similar true minor sources. The difference between registration permits and general construction permits or general operating permits is that this program develops permits for specific source categories exclusively for true minor sources.

    The October 1, 2007, submittal provides the following requirements for registration permits under paragraph II.I: (1) Registration permits will be developed by SC DHEC and will specify all applicable requirements for construction and operation of similar true minor sources; (2) registration permits will be developed only for true minor sources; (3) sources can submit applications for coverage by certifying qualification for, and agreeing to the conditions of, registration permits, and sources later determined not to qualify for the registration permit are subject to enforcement; (4) approval to operate under a permit is a final permit action for the purposes of judicial review; and (5) sources will adhere to general requirements under paragraph II.J.1., and any other special permit conditions necessary to verify compliance with operational and emission limits.

    The July 18, 2011, submittal makes subsequent changes to subsection II.I. as follows: (1) Makes administrative edits; (2) adds language to assert that regardless of qualification for registration permits, SC DHEC reserves the right to require construction and operating permits, as determined on a case-by-case basis; and (3) changes language to clarify that registration permits shall contain any applicable permit conditions under subsection II.J., rather than all permit conditions listed in paragraph II.J., as SC DHEC finds appropriate.

    The August 8, 2014, submittal includes other changes to paragraph II.I., including administrative edits throughout and adding language to assert that SC DHEC can reopen registration permits for cause or to include new standards or regulations that become applicable during the lifetime of the permit. The August 8, 2014, submittal also removes language at subparagraph I.1.a. requiring SC DHEC to provide notice and opportunity for public participation prior to developing new registration permits. However, the State withdrew this change from EPA's consideration in a letter dated August 7, 2017.7 In the letter, SC DHEC explained that its intent in withdrawing the change was to require the Department to comply with the public participation procedures at subsection II.N. when developing registration permits.

    7 The August 7, 2017, letter has been included in the docket for this action.

    EPA has reviewed the changes made to the registration permit requirements, as clarified by the State's August 7, 2017, letter, and is proposing to approve them into the SIP, pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l), and 40 CFR part 51, subpart I.

    11. Section II.J.—“Permit Conditions”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.J.—“Permit Conditions” specifies required standard and special permit conditions. The October 1, 2007, submittal combines the standard and special permit conditions into a standalone section for required permit conditions. This submittal makes the following changes at paragraph J.: (1) Renumbers former subsection II.C. to II.J. and modifies the title to reflect that the subsection applies to all permit types; (2) requires sources to submit reports as specified in applicable permits, laws, regulations, or standards; (3) adds language to assert that a source may be subject to enforcement if it fails to construct in accordance with the application and any issued construction permit, or constructs without applying for approval; (4) adds language to clarify the time period over which construction permits are valid; (5) renumbers paragraph G.4. to paragraph J.2. and modifies the title to clarify that what follows are special permit conditions; (6) adds language stating that SC DHEC will require special permit conditions as it finds appropriate, such as operational limits or reporting and recordkeeping requirements; (7) removes former subparagraph G.4.g., which states conditions to limit PTE must be federally enforceable, because the State otherwise imposes this requirement for synthetic minor construction permits at subparagraph E.3. and conditional major operating permits at subparagraph G.5.; and (8) makes administrative language changes throughout subsection II.J.

    One change made to subparagraph J.1.d., formerly C.4., in the October 1, 2007, submittal regards when emissions reports need to be made. In the place of a specific quarterly timeframe, the change directs sources to comply with reporting requirements derived from applicable permit requirements, laws and regulations, or standards. There are no specific reporting requirements for minor sources specified in federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-164, so these reporting schedules can be developed as SC DHEC deems necessary.8 Moreover, subparagraph J.1.a. states that “[n]o applicable law, regulation or standard will be contravened.” Thus, if there is a prescriptive state or federal requirement for reporting of emissions that applies to any of these minor sources, the permits will set the necessary reporting schedule accordingly. Therefore, EPA has determined that this change does not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirements.

    8 40 CFR 70.6 generally requires semiannual emissions and compliance reporting.

    The July 18, 2011, submittal makes further revisions to subsection II.J., including: (1) Adding language stating that false information or misrepresentation in a permit application is grounds for permit revocation; (2) adding language stating that the issued construction or operating permit must be kept at the facility and that records must be kept as prescribed on site for at least five years; and (3) making administrative and clarifying edits. The August 8, 2014, submittal makes additional administrative changes.

    EPA has reviewed the changes to standard and special permit requirements for the minor source construction and operating permit program and is proposing to approve them into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    12. Section II.K.—“Exceptions”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.K.—“Exceptions” sets forth factors that SC DHEC shall consider in determining whether to impose alternative emissions limits, compliance schedules, or other restrictions. The October 1, 2007, submittal makes non-substantive changes to this subsection, including renumbering this existing subsection from II.D. to II.K., and making administrative language changes. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the aforementioned changes into the SIP pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    13. Section II.M.—“Transfer of Ownership/Operation”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.M.—“Transfer of Ownership/Operation” specifies procedures for owners or operators of sources to undertake if the ownership or operation is transferred to another party. The October 1, 2007, submittal makes minor changes to this regulation to renumber existing subsection II.E. to subsection II.M. and to add more specific requirements for the written request to transfer ownership or operation of a source. The August 8, 2014, submittal makes only administrative changes to language in this subsection.

    EPA has reviewed the changes to this existing portion of the minor source permitting regulations and is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l).

    14. Section II.N.—“Public Participation Procedures”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.N.—“Public Participation Procedures,” specifies the public participation requirements for sources applying for and obtaining federally enforceable minor source construction and operating permits. The October 1, 2007, submittal makes several changes to subsection N. as follows: (1) Renumbers existing paragraph G.5. to create a standalone paragraph for public participation and clarify that these procedures can apply to other types of permit requests rather than only conditional major source operating permits; (2) adds language providing SC DHEC with discretion to require notice of permitting activity, even when not otherwise required by the State's regulations; (3) adds language stating that SC DHEC can use means other than publishing in newspapers, the State Register, and mailing lists to notify the public of minor source permitting; and (5) makes administrative language edits for consistency.

    The July 18, 2011, submittal makes one clarifying edit to reflect that an approved construction permit is required prior to the commencement of construction. The August 8, 2014, submittal makes administrative and clarifying edits to subsection II.N., including: (1) Adding language to subparagraph N.1. to identify the SC DHEC Web site as another method of notifying the public of permitting activity; (2) reformatting and revising paragraph N.2. to list the required elements of the public notice; (3) revising language to identify how SC DHEC will address and record comments, and broadening the SC DHEC procedures to note that the State will respond to all comments rather than only those received in writing or at the public hearing; (4) removing language requiring SC DEHC to respond to all comments in writing; and (5) making administrative edits.

    The changes in the October 1, 2007, submittal to allow for other methods of public notice, and in the August 8, 2014, submittal to explicitly list the SC DHEC Web site as a possible method of public notice are consistent with the minor source permitting regulations at 40 CFR 51.161. EPA has existing policy asserting that the public notice requirement for minor source permitting activities at 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3) is media-neutral, meaning that the public notice requirement can be met as long as the State interprets the method to be “prominent advertising.” 9 SC DHEC can therefore make use of its Web site, mailing lists, and other methods in lieu of publication in a newspaper. The provisions at subsection II.N. pertain only to minor sources, and any major source public notice requirements are contained in the major source PSD, NNSR, and title V regulations.10

    9 McCabe, Janet, “Minor New Source Review Program Public Notice Requirements under 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3),” Memorandum to Regional Administrators, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC (April 17, 2012).

    10 EPA published a final rule on October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71613) amending the public notice requirements for major source permitting programs to allow for other means of public notice, including Web sites. This proposed rulemaking only deals with changes to South Carolina's minor source permitting regulations.

    EPA has reviewed the public notice requirements and preliminarily finds that the changes currently before the Agency are not inconsistent with the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations, including the criteria for approving FESOP programs. See 54 FR 27274 (June 28, 1989). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the changes to the existing public notice requirements for the minor NSR and FESOP programs, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160-164.

    15. Section II.O.—“Inspection and Entry”

    Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.O.—“Inspection and Entry,” specifies requirements to allow SC DHEC officials to enter and inspect facilities. South Carolina's July 18, 2011, submittal adds these provisions to the minor source construction and operating permitting program to allow for verification of adherence to permit conditions. The August 8, 2014, submittal makes one additional administrative change to the introductory language at subsection II.O. The ability for SC DHEC to enter and inspect facilities enables the State to oversee the minor source permitting program, including assisting in potential enforcement actions. EPA is therefore proposing to approve this subsection and its updated provisions into the SIP, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements,” effective June 24, 2016,11 which revises the federally enforceable minor source construction and operating permit program. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    11 See Section I and Section II.C. of this proposed rule for additional detail.

    V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve portions of revisions to the South Carolina SIP submitted by SC DHEC to EPA on October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2016. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the changes to S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements,” as discussed above, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(l), and 40 CFR 51.160—164.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule for South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the state of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17345 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0104; FRL-9966-18-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the following four actions regarding the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP), contingent upon a final determination from the Agency that a state's participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) continues to meet the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)'s criteria to qualify as an alternative to the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART): Approve the portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, regional haze SIP to a full approval; approve the visibility prong of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and convert EPA's disapproval of the visibility portion of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS to an approval.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0104 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:

    Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to submit regional haze SIPs that contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).

    EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 39104. In those revisions, EPA amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) need not require affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was “better-than-BART,” a number of states in the CAIR region, including Alabama, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving their reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.2 Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.

    1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of Columbia), including Alabama, that contributed to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide “budgets” for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was “fatally flawed” and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Alabama's regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Alabama submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency. See 77 FR 33642. EPA finalized a limited approval of Alabama's regional haze SIP on June 28, 2012, as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR. See 77 FR 38515.

    In the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.3 See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.4

    3 Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012).

    4 EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012). EPA has approved Minnesota's and Wisconsin's SIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801, 34806 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota and 77 FR 46952, 46959 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin.

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 11 states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017.

    On November 10, 2016, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) explaining the Agency's belief that the potentially material changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage resulting from the D.C. Circuit's remand will be limited to the withdrawal of the FIP provisions providing SO2 and annual NOX budgets for Texas and ozone-season NOX budgets for Florida. This is due, in part, to EPA's approval of the portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submittal adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed budgets and to commitments from Georgia and South Carolina to submit SIP revisions adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equal to or more stringent than the federally-developed budgets. See 81 FR 78954. Since publication of the NPRM, Georgia and South Carolina have submitted these SIP revisions to EPA.5 In the NPRM, EPA also proposed to determine that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage do not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains “better-than-BART;” that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading program. At this time, EPA has not finalized this proposed determination.

    5 Georgia's rulemaking to adopt the Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets became state effective on July 20, 2017, and the State will submit a SIP revision to EPA in the near future. South Carolina submitted a SIP revision to EPA for parallel processing on May 26, 2017, to adopt the Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets.

    Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submittal also seeks to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval of its regional haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.6 Specifically, Alabama requests that EPA amend the State's regional haze SIP by replacing its reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy SO2 and NOX BART requirements and SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR,7 and to support the RPGs for the Sipsey Wilderness Area in Alabama for the first planning period. EPA is proposing to take these actions in this action.

    6 On August 31, 2016 (81 FR 59869), EPA approved portions of the October 26, 2015, SIP submission incorporating into Alabama's SIP the State's regulations requiring Alabama EGUs to participate in CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal trading programs and thus replacing the corresponding FIP requirements. In the August 31, 2016, action, EPA did not take any action regarding Alabama's request in this October 26, 2015, SIP submission to revise the State's regional haze SIP nor regarding the prong 4 for the 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, and 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    7 In its regional haze SIP, Alabama concluded and EPA found acceptable the State's determination that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for SO2 for affected Alabama EGUs for the first implementation period. See 77 FR 11949 (February 28, 2012).

    B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.

    Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and to convert EPA's disapproval of the prong 4 portion of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to an approval, as discussed in section IV of this notice.8 All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following subsections.

    8See 82 FR 9512 (February 7, 2017).

    1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Alabama submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on April 23, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.9

    9 The other portions of Alabama's April 23 2013, SO2 infrastructure submission have been addressed in a previous EPA action. See 82 FR 3637 (January 12, 2017).

    2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Alabama submitted infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those submissions.10

    10 The other portions for Alabama's April 23 2013, and December 9, 2015, NO2 infrastructure submissions have been addressed in previous EPA actions. See 81 FR 83142 (November 21, 2016); 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).

    3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Alabama submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 9, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.11

    11 The other portions of Alabama's December 9, 2015, PM2.5 infrastructure submission are being addressed in separate actions.

    4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. Alabama submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on August 20, 2012. On February 7, 2017, EPA disapproved the prong 4 element of Alabama's 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure submission. See 82 FR 9512. This proposed action addresses that disapproval and proposes to convert it to a full approval for prong 4.12

    12 The other portions of Alabama's March 12, 2008, ozone infrastructure SIP submission have been addressed in previous EPA actions. See 80 FR 14019 (March 3, 2015); 80 FR 17689 (April 2, 2015).

    II. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “each such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.13 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    13 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.14 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.15 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.

    14See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    15 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.16 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.17

    16See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    17 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007, submittal.

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.18

    18 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.19 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).20 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.21 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    19 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    20 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    21 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). Regardless of how they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; 22 (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.23 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    22 Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,” 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section 304.

    23 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.24 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.25 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.26

    24 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

    25 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    26See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    III. What are the Prong 4 requirements?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.

    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Alabama addressed Prong 4 and regional haze?

    Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015, 2010 1-hour NO2 submissions; April 23, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 9, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission rely on the State having a fully approved regional haze SIP to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA has not fully approved Alabama's regional haze SIP, as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR. To correct the deficiencies in its regional haze SIP and obtain approval of the aforementioned infrastructure SIPs that rely on the regional haze SIP, the State submitted a SIP revision on October 26, 2015, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. 27

    27 See Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submittal, Part H—Proposed Revisions to Alabama Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP).

    EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the State's October 26, 2015, SIP revision and convert EPA's previous action on Alabama's regional haze SIP from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval of this portion of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP. Specifically, EPA's approval of this portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOx BART requirements and SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the requirement that a LTS include measures as necessary to achieve the State-adopted RPGs. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is therefore also proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Alabama's April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure submissions; the April 23, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure submission; and the December 9, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission; and to convert EPA's February 7, 2017, disapproval of the prong 4 portions of Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure submission to an approval. However, as noted above, EPA proposed in November 2016 to find that CSAPR remains “better than BART” given the changes to CSAPR's scope in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand, but the Agency has not finalized this national rulemaking. Therefore, EPA will not finalize the proposed approvals of Alabama's regional haze and prong 4 submissions described above unless it has finalized the CSAPR remains “better-than-BART” rulemaking or otherwise determined that participation in CSAPR remains a viable alternative to BART.

    V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions, contingent upon a final determination that CSAPR continues to qualify as an alternative to the application of BART under the RHR: (1) Approve the regional haze portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, regional haze SIP to a full approval; (3) approve the prong 4 portion of Alabama's April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015, 2010 1-hour NO2 submissions; April 23, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 9, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission; and (4) convert EPA's February 7, 2017, disapproval of the prong 4 portion of Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission to an approval. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 4, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17346 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0085; FRL-9966-23-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; NC; Air Curtain Burners AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of North Carolina through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)), Division of Air Quality (DAQ), on October 14, 2004, March 24, 2006, and January 31, 2008. The proposed revisions are changes to the air curtain burner regulation of the North Carolina SIP and are part of North Carolina's strategy to meet and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA has taken or will take action with respect to all other portions of these SIP revisions. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0085 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 or Nacosta C. Ward, 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] Ms. Ward can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140, or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP 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: August 4, 2017 V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17243 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0382; FRL-9966-30-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revisions To Implement the Revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia which includes revised provisions of the State Air Pollution Control Board's Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution to be consistent with EPA's final rule revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS and implementing the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0382 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Calcinore, (215) 814 2043, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: August 3, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17234 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0146; FRL-9966-61-OAR] Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Volatility Standard for Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request from Tennessee for EPA to relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for Shelby County, Tennessee (Memphis or Area). Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the regulations to allow the RVP standard for Shelby County to change from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline. EPA has preliminarily determined that this change to the Federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017 unless a public hearing is requested by September 1, 2017. If EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0146, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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 disclosure of which is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for instructions. 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.

    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Dickinson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9256; fax number: (202) 343-2804; email address: [email protected] You may also contact Rudolph Kapichak, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4574; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

    I. General Information II. Public Participation III. Background and Proposal IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews V. Legal Authority I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are fuel producers and distributors involved in the supplying of gasoline to Shelby County, TN.

    Examples of potentially
  • regulated entities
  • NAICS 1 codes
    Petroleum refineries 324110 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors 424710
  • 424720
  • Gasoline Retail Stations 447110 Gasoline Transporters 484220
  • 484230
  • 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this proposed rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this proposed rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the CAA, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    II. Public Participation

    EPA will not hold a public hearing on this matter unless a request is received by the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble by September 1, 2017. If EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

    III. Background and Proposal A. Summary of the Proposal

    EPA is proposing to approve a request from Tennessee to change the summertime Federal RVP standard for Shelby County from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). In a separate rulemaking, noted below, EPA has already approved a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration which concludes that relaxing the Federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year in Shelby County would not interfere with the maintenance of the ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the maintenance of the other NAAQS, or with any other applicable CAA requirement. When Tennessee previously requested that Shelby County be redesignated to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard, Tennessee took a conservative approach for the maintenance plan demonstration by modeling 9.0 psi for the RVP requirements as opposed to 7.8 psi. Tennessee did not, at that time, request the relaxation of the Federal RVP requirements for Shelby County. More recently, Tennessee requested a relaxation of the Federal RVP requirements. This has necessitated a demonstration that relaxing the Federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year in Shelby County would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS, including the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement, under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, by a subsequent rulemaking, EPA approved Tennessee's non-interference demonstration for its already approved maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.2

    2 EPA approved the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the portion of Tennessee that is within the Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas (Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 ozone nonattainment area on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40816). EPA approved Tennessee's non-interference demonstration on July 7, 2017 (82 FR 31462).

    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III.B. provides the history of the Federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section III.C. describes the policy regarding relaxation of gasoline volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas. Section III.D. provides information specific to Tennessee's request for Shelby County.

    B. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section 211(c), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state basis in that final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).

    The 1990 CAA Amendments established new CAA section 211(h) to address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section III.C.

    C. Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated to Attainment

    As stated in the preamble for EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the gasoline volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi gasoline RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the Federal gasoline RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

    As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard. Similarly, a maintenance plan may be revised to relax the gasoline volatility standard if the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will maintain attainment for the duration of the maintenance plan.

    D. Tennessee's Request To Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement for Shelby County

    On April 12, 2017, Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC or State), submitted a request to relax the Federal gasoline RVP requirement in Shelby County. The State also submitted a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration for approval by EPA. The non-interference demonstration shows that the relaxation would not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement including the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Tennessee did not request relaxation of the Federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when TDEC originally submitted the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that was approved on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40816).

    On July 7, 2017, EPA approved Tennessee's April 12, 2017 request for approval of the CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration. In that rulemaking, EPA included an evaluation of Tennessee's CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration for Shelby County.3

    3 82 FR 31462 (July 7, 2017).

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's request to relax the summertime ozone season gasoline RVP standard for Shelby County from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the applicable gasoline RVP standard to allow the gasoline RVP requirements at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for Shelby County to change from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This proposal is based on EPA's separate approval of Tennessee's April 12, 2017 request for a non-interference demonstration approval and EPA's June 23, 2016 approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as described above.

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

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Tennessee, and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Tennessee. This action, if finalized, would relax the Federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in Shelby County, Tennessee during the summertime ozone season (June 1 to September 15 of each year) to allow the RVP for gasoline sold in this county to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h) Volatility Control program. Therefore, this action would have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action would implement mandates that are specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed rule would affect only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Shelby County and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. EPA has no reason to believe that this action may disproportionately affect children since Tennessee has provided evidence that a relaxation of the gasoline RVP will not interfere with its attainment of the ozone NAAQS for Shelby County, or any other applicable CAA requirement. By separate action, EPA has approved Tennessee's non-interference demonstration regarding its maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and that Tennessee's relaxation of the gasoline RVP standard in Shelby County to 9.0 RVP will not interfere with any other NAAQS or CAA requirement.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action would not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule would relax the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer, possibly resulting in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However, Tennessee has demonstrated in its non-interference demonstration that this action will not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in Shelby County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are contained in EPA's proposed and final rules for Tennessee's non-interference demonstration. A copy of Tennessee's April 12, 2017 letter requesting that EPA relax the gasoline RVP standard, including the technical analysis demonstrating that the less stringent gasoline RVP would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Shelby County, or with any other applicable CAA requirement, has been placed in the public docket for this action.

    V. Legal Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 11, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17420 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 372 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0197; FRL-9964-76] RIN 2070-AK32 Community Right-To-Know; Adopting 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is proposing to update the list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes subject to reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to reflect the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2017 NAICS code revision. As a result of this proposal, facilities would be required to use 2017 NAICS codes when reporting to TRI beginning with TRI reporting forms that are due on July 1, 2018, covering releases and other waste management quantities for the 2017 calendar year. EPA is also modifying the list of exceptions and limitations associated with NAICS codes in the CFR for TRI reporting purposes by deleting the descriptive text. EPA believes that the proposed amendments are non-controversial and does not expect to receive any adverse comments. Therefore, in addition to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is promulgating the 2017 NAICS code update as a direct final rule. For more information on this proposal, please refer to the direct final rule.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0197, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Stephanie Griffin, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division, Mailcode 7410M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-1463; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Information Center; telephone number: (800) 424-9346, TDD (800) 553-7672; Web site: https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information about the proposed update to TRI's covered NAICS codes, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register. To comment on this proposed rule, and by extension the direct final rule, you must reference docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0197 in one of the manners described above in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17412 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 158 Thursday, August 17, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity To Comment on the Applicants for the South Carolina Area Consisting of the Entire State of South Carolina, Except Those Export Port Locations Within the State, Which Are Serviced by the South Carolina Department of Agriculture AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    GIPSA requests comments on the applicants for designation to provide official services in the South Carolina Area that was open for designation. South Carolina Department of Agriculture (SCDA) applied for the entire State of South Carolina. D.R. Schaal Agency, Inc. (Schaal) applied for all or part of the State of South Carolina.

    DATES:

    GIPSA will consider comments received by September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on these applicants. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Sharon Lathrop, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the May 22, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 23175), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the South Carolina Area to submit an application for designation.

    There were two applicants for the South Carolina Area, comprised of the entire State of South Carolina, except those export port locations which are serviced by SCDA, which was open for designation: SCDA applied for the entire area currently assigned to them. Schaal applied for the entire State or the following nine counties within the State of South Carolina: Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, Georgetown, Hampton, and Jasper.

    Request for Comments

    GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments concerning the applicants. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants. All comments must be submitted to QACD at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov. GIPSA will consider all comments received timely along with other available information when making a final decision. GIPSA will then publish a notice of the final decision in the Federal Register, and GIPSA will send the applicants written notification of the decision.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17358 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-77-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone 75—Phoenix, Arizona; Withdrawal of Application for Subzone Expansion; Conair Corporation, Glendale, Arizona

    The City of Phoenix, Arizona, grantee of FTZ 75, submitted an application, docketed on May 16, 2017, requesting expanded subzone status for the facilities of Conair Corporation (Conair), Subzone 75A, located in Glendale, Arizona (82 FR 25239, June 1, 2017). The City of Phoenix subsequently requested and obtained approval for the expanded subzone status for Conair under the alternative site framework. As a result, the City of Phoenix has withdrawn the initial application requesting expanded subzone status. For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at [email protected] or (202) 482-0862.

    Dated: August 11, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17363 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: David L. Maricola, Inmate Number: 96672-038, FCI Fort Dix, P.O. Box 2000, Joint Base MDL, NJ 08640 Order Denying Export Privileges

    On August 24, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, David L. Maricola (“Maricola”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Maricola was convicted of, among other things, 19 counts of knowingly and willfully exporting and attempting to export from the United States to various countries defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, firearm parts, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Maricola was sentenced to 33 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $3,200 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”. Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Maricola's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Maricola to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Maricola.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Maricola's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Maricola's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Maricola had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until August 24, 2026, David L. Maricola, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 96672-038, FCI Fort Dix, P.O. Box 2000, Joint Base MDL, NJ 08640, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Maricola by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Maricola may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Maricola and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until August 24, 2026.

    Issued: August 10, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17371 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Alexandre Dos Anjos Oliveira, Inmate Number: 05753-104, McRae Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Drawer 55030, McRae Helena, GA 31055; Order Denying Export Privileges

    On April 9, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Alexandre Dos Anjos Oliveira (“Oliveira”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Oliveira was convicted of knowingly and willfully attempting to export from the United States to Brazil firearm barrels, cylinders, receivers, components, parts, and accessories designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without the required State Department licenses. Oliveira was sentenced to 38 months in prison, one year of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Oliveira's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Oliveira to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Oliveira.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Oliveira's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five (5) years from the date of Oliveira's conviction. I also have decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Oliveira had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until April 9, 2020, Alexandre Dos Anjos Oliveira, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 05753-104, McRae Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Drawer 55030, McRae Helena, GA 31055, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Oliveira by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Oliveira may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Oliveira, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until April 9, 2020.

    Issued: August 10, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17368 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Mansour Moghtaderi Zadeh, a/k/a Mansour Zadeh, a/k/a Mita Zarek, a/k/a Mita Zadeh currently incarcerated at: Inmate Number: 43594-013, Rivers Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 630, Winton, NC 27986, and with prior known addresses at: 16 Kyraikou Matsi Ave., 3rd Floor, 1082 Nicosia, Cyprus, and Strovolou 77, Strovolos Center Suite 202, Strovolos P.C. 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus and P.O. Box 23973, 1687 Nicosia, Cyprus Order Denying Export Privileges

    On December 14, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Mansour Moghtaderi Zadeh, a/k/a Mansour Zadeh, a/k/a Mita Zarek, a/k/a Mita Zadeh (“Zadeh”), was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)) (“IEEPA”). Specifically, Zadeh was convicted of knowingly and willfully conspiring to export and cause the export of goods from the United States to Iran without the required U.S. Government authorization. The goods involved included aviation course indicators, aerospace metal sheets and rods, specialty paints and adhesives, and a fiber optic video transmitter and receiver. Zadeh's unlawful conduct included violating an underlying temporary denial order (“TDO”) that the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) had issued. The named respondents under the TDO included, among other parties, Zadeh (under his “Mita Zarek” alias) and Lavantia, Ltd., a Nicosia, Cyprus company that Zadeh owned and/or controlled. Zadeh was sentenced to 18 months in prison, 12 months of supervised release, and a special assessment of $100.00. Additionally, Zadeh forfeited $69,159.

    Section 766.25 of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that BIS's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any BIS licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    BIS has received notice of Zadeh's conviction for violating IEEPA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Zadeh to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has received a seven-page submission from Zadeh, via his U.S. counsel.

    Based upon my review, including of Zadeh's submission, and my consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Zadeh's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of ten (10) years from the date of Zadeh's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Zadeh had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until December 14, 2026, Mansour Moghtaderi Zadeh, a/k/a Mansour Zadeh, a/k/a Mita Zarek, a/k/a Mita Zadeh, currently incarcerated at Inmate Number: 43594-013, Rivers Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 630, Winton, NC 27986, and with prior known addresses of 16 Kyraikou Matsi Ave, 3rd Floor, 1082 Nicosia, Cyprus, and Strovolou 77, Strovolos Center Suite 202, Strovolos P.C. 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, and P.O. Box 23973, 1687 Nicosia, Cyprus, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Zadeh by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Zadeh may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Zadeh and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 14, 2026.

    Issued: August 10, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17369 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Wenxia Man, a/k/a Wency Man, Inmate Number: 50772-298, FCI Dublin, 5701 8th Street—Camp Parks, Dublin, CA 94568 Order Denying Export Privileges

    On August 19, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Wenxia Man, a/k/a Wency Man (“Wenxia Man”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Wenxia Man was convicted of knowingly and willfully conspiring to export and cause the export from the United States to the People's Republic of China of defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, fighter jet engines and an unmanned aerial vehicle, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Wenxia Man was sentenced to 50 months in prison, two years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of her conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Wenxia Man's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Wenxia Man to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Wenxia Man.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Wenxia Man's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Wenxia Man's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Wenxia Man had an interest at the time of her conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until August 19, 2026, Wenxia Man, a/k/a Wency Man, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 50772-298, FCI Dublin, 5701 8th Street—Camp Parks, Dublin, CA 94568, and when acting for or on her behalf, her successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Wenxia Man by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Wenxia Man may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Wenxia Man and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until August 19, 2026.

    Issued: August 10, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17372 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Yasser Ahmad Obeid, Inmate Number: 60923-018, FCI Yazoo City Medium, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 5888, Yazoo City, MS 39194 Order Denying Export Privileges

    On December 17, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Yasser Ahmad Obeid (“Obeid”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Obeid was convicted of knowingly and willfully attempting to export and attempting to cause to be exported firearms designated as a defense article on the United States Munition List, without the required U.S. Department of State license. Obeid was sentenced to 51 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $300 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Obeid's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Obeid to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Obeid.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Obeid's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Obeid's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Obeid had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until December 17, 2024, Yasser Ahmad Obeid, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 60923-018, FCI Yazoo City Medium, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 5888, Yazoo City, MS 39194, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (“the Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Obeid by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Obeid may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Obeid, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 17, 2024.

    Issued: August 10, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17375 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Ricardo Humberto Varela, Inmate Number: 85044-379, Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop, P.O. Box 1010, Bastrop, TX 78602 Order Denying Export Privileges

    On February 8, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ricardo Humberto Varela (“Varela”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Varela was convicted of intentionally and knowingly conspiring and agreeing to knowingly and willfully export and cause to be exported from the United States to Mexico defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, 5.56 caliber rifles, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Varela was sentenced to 46 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $200 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration act (“EAA” or “the Act”) in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Varela's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Varela to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Varela.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Varela's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Varela's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Varela had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until February 8, 2021, Ricardo Humberto Varela, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 85044-379, Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop, P.O. Box 1010, Bastrop, TX 78602, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Varela by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Varela may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Varela and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until February 8, 2021.

    Issued: August 10, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17373 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Jose Luis Benavides-Cira, Inmate Number: 85055-379, Great Plains Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 400, Hinton, OK 73047 Order Denying Export Privileges

    On November 30, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Jose Luis Benavides-Cira was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Jose Luis Benavides-Cira was convicted of intentionally and knowingly conspiring and agreeing with other persons to knowingly and willfully export, and cause to be exported, from the United States to Mexico defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, 5.56 caliber rifles, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Jose Luis Benavides-Cira was sentenced to 46 months in prison and a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”) or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Jose Luis Benavides-Cira's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Jose Luis Benavides-Cira to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Jose Luis Benavides-Cira.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Jose Luis Benavides-Cira's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Jose Luis Benavides-Cira's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Jose Luis Benavides-Cira had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until November 30, 2020, Jose Luis Benavides-Cira, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 85055-379, Great Plains Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 400, Hinton, OK 73047, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (“the Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Jose Luis Benavides-Cira by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Jose Luis Benavides-Cira may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Jose Luis Benavides-Cira, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until November 30, 2020.

    Issued: August 10, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17374 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-010] Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aleksandras Nakutis, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 8, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC.1 The Department received a timely request from Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd. (Topray Solar) and SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (the petitioner), in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), to conduct an administrative review of this antidumping duty order.2 On March 24, 2017, Topray Solar timely withdrew its request for an administrative review.3

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspend Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 9709 (February 8, 2017).

    2See Letter from Topray Solar, regarding “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” dated February 27, 2017; see also Letter from the petitioner, regarding “Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review,” dated February 28, 2017.

    3See Letter from Topray Solar, regarding “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products form the People's Republic of China Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated March 24, 2017.

    On April 10, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation 4 of an administrative review with respect to 27 companies. Because Topray Solar timely withdrew its request for an administrative review before the Department published its initiation notice, the Department did not initiate an administrative review with respect to Topray Solar. On May 11, 2017, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of all 27 companies for which it had requested a review.5

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188 (April 10, 2017).

    5See Letter from the petitioner, regarding “Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Administrative Review Request,” dated May 11, 2017.

    Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Topray Solar and the petitioner withdrew their requests for review by the 90-day deadline, and no other parties requested an administrative review of this order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC covering the period February 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at an amount equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 9, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17361 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Annual Notice of Variable Interest Rates of Federal Student Loans Made Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program Prior to July 1, 2010 AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid, Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid announces the variable interest rates for the period July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, for certain loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program. The Chief Operating Officer takes this action to give notice of FFEL Program loan variable interest rates to the public.

    DATES:

    This notice is applicable August 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rene Tiongquico, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE., 11th floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 377-4270 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.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.032.

    Section 427A of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1077a), provides formulas for determining the interest rates charged to borrowers on loans made under the FFEL Program, including Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans, Federal PLUS Loans, and Federal Consolidation Loans.

    The FFEL Program includes loans with variable interest rates and loans with fixed interest rates. Most loans made under the FFEL Program before July 1, 2006, have variable interest rates that change each year. In most cases, the variable interest rate formula that applies to a particular loan depends on the date of the first disbursement of the loan. The variable rates are determined annually and are effective for each 12-month period beginning July 1 of one year and ending June 30 of the following year.

    Under section 427A(l) of the HEA, FFEL Program loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2010, have a fixed interest rate. Interest rates for these loans may be found in a Federal Register notice published on September 15, 2015 (80 FR 55342).

    Federal Consolidation Loans made prior to November 13, 1997, and on or after October 1, 1998, have a fixed interest rate that is based on the weighted average of the loans that are consolidated. Interest rates for Federal Consolidation Loans made between November 13, 1997, and September 30, 1998, are provided in Chart 3.

    FFEL variable interest rates are based on formulas that use the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bill auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year plus a statutorily established add-on. These formulas apply to: All Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans first disbursed before October 1, 1992, that have been converted to variable rate loans; all Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans first disbursed on or after October 1, 1992, and before July 1, 2006; Federal PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1998, and before July 1, 2006; and Federal Consolidation Loans for which the Federal Consolidation Loan application was received on or after November 13, 1997, and before October 1, 1998. In each case, the calculated rate is capped by a maximum interest rate. The bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned on May 30, 2017, which is used to calculate the interest rates on these loans, is 0.976 percent rounded up to 0.98 percent.

    For Federal PLUS loans first disbursed before July 1, 1998, the interest rate is based on the weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the last day of the calendar week ending on or before June 26 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage. The calculated rate is capped by a maximum interest rate. The weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield published on June 26, 2017, which is used to calculate the interest rate on these loans, is 1.22 percent.

    For Federal Consolidation loans for which the application was received by the lender on or after November 13, 1997, the interest rate that includes portions of Federal Consolidation Loans attributable to loans made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under subpart I of part A of title VII of the Public Health Service Act, is based on the average of the bond equivalent rates of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned for the quarter ending June 30, 2017, plus a statutory add-on percentage. There is no maximum interest rate for these loans. The average of the bond equivalent rates of the 91-day Treasury bill auctioned for the quarter ending on June 30, 2017, which is used to calculate the interest rate on these loans, is 0.92 percent.

    This notice includes three charts containing specific information on the calculation of variable interest rates for loans made under the FFEL Program:

    Chart 1 contains information on the interest rates for Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans that were made as fixed-rate loans, but were subsequently converted to variable-rate loans.

    Chart 2 contains information on the interest rates for variable-rate Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans.

    Chart 3 contains information on the interest rates for variable-rate Federal PLUS Loans, certain Federal Consolidation Loans, and Consolidation Loans that include loans made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under subpart I of part A of title VII of the Public Health Service Act.

    Chart 1—“Converted” Variable-Rate Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans Interest Rates in Effect for the Period 7/1/2017 Through 6/30/2018 Cohort First disbursed on or after First disbursed before Original fixed interest rate
  • (%)
  • Max. rate
  • (%)
  • 91-Day T-bill rate
  • (%)
  • Margin
  • (%)
  • Total rate
  • (%)
  • 7/1/1988 7/23/1992 8.00, increasing to 10.00 10.00 0.98 3.25 4.23 7/23/1992 10/1/1992 8.00, increasing to 10.00 10.00 0.98 3.25 4.23 7/23/1992 7/1/1994 7.00 7.00 0.98 3.10 4.08 7/23/1992 7/1/1994 8.00 8.00 0.98 3.10 4.08 7/23/1992 7/1/1994 9.00 9.00 0.98 3.10 4.08 7/23/1992 7/1/1994 8.00, increasing to 10.00 10.00 0.98 3.10 4.08
    Note:

    The FFEL Program loans represented by the second row of the chart were only made to “new borrowers” on or after July 23, 1992. Whether the FFEL Program loans represented by the third through sixth rows of Chart 1 were made to a specific borrower depends on the interest rate on the borrower's existing loans (see the “Original Fixed Interest Rate” column in Chart 1) at the time the borrower received the loan(s) on or after July 23, 1992, and prior to July 1, 1994.

    In Charts 2 and 3, a dagger following a date in a cohort field indicates that the trigger for the rate to apply is a period of enrollment for which the loan was intended either “ending before” or “beginning on or after” the date in the cohort field.

    Chart 2—Variable-Rate Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans Interest Rates in Effect for the Period 7/1/2017 Through 6/30/2018 Cohort First disbursed on or after First disbursed before Max. rate 91-Day T-bill rate Margin In-school, grace, deferment
  • (%)
  • All other
  • periods
  • (%)
  • Total rate
  • (%)
  • In-school, grace, deferment
  • (%)
  • All other
  • periods
  • (%)
  • 10/1/1992 7/1/1994 9.00 0.98 3.10 3.10 4.08 4.08 7/1/1994 7/1/1994† 9.00 0.98 3.10 3.10 4.08 4.08 7/1/1994 7/1/1995 8.25 0.98 3.10 3.10 4.08 4.08 7/1/1995 7/1/1998 8.25 0.98 2.50 3.10 3.48 4.08 7/1/1998 7/1/2006 8.25 0.98 1.70 2.30 2.68 3.28
    Note:

    The FFEL Program loans represented in the first row in Chart 2 were only made to “new borrowers” on or after October 1, 1992. The FFEL Program loans represented in the second row in Chart 2 were only made to “new borrowers” on or after July 1, 1994. The FFEL Program loans represented in the third row in Chart 2 must—in addition to having been first disbursed on or after July 1, 1994, and before July 1, 1995—have been made for a period of enrollment that began on or included July 1, 1994.

    Chart 3—Variable-Rate Federal PLUS, SLS, and Consolidation Loans Interest Rates in Effect for the Period 7/1/2017 Through 6/30/2018 Loan type Cohort First disbursed on or after First disbursed before Max. rate
  • (%)
  • Index rate 91-Day T-bill rate 1-Year constant Treasury maturity
  • (%)
  • Margin
  • (%)
  • Total rate
  • (%)
  • PLUS and SLS 10/1/1992 12.00 1.22 3.25 4.47 SLS 10/1/1992 7/1/1994† 11.00 1.22 3.10 4.32 PLUS 10/1/1992 7/1/1994 10.00 1.22 3.10 4.32 PLUS 7/1/1994 7/1/1998 9.00 1.22 3.10 4.32 PLUS 7/1/1998 7/1/2006 9.00 0.98 3.10 4.08 Loan type Application received on or after Application received before Max. rate 91-Day T-bill rate Average of the Bond equivalent rates of the 91-Day T-bill for the quarter prior to July 1 Margin Total rate Consolidation 11/13/1997 10/1/1998 8.25 0.98 3.10 4.08 HHS Portion of Consolidation 11/13/1997 0.92 3.00 3.92

    The last row in Chart 3 refers to portions of Federal Consolidation Loans attributable to loans made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under subpart I of part A of title VII of the Public Health Service Act.

    Note:

    No new loans have been made under the FFEL Program since June 30, 2010.

    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 Adobe Portable Document Format (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.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.

    Dated: August 14, 2017. A. Wayne Johnson, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17424 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Annual Notice of Interest Rates for Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Prior to July 1, 2013 AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid, Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    DATES:

    This notice is applicable August 17, 2017.

    SUMMARY:

    The Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program prior to July 1, 2013. For loans that have a variable interest rate, the rates announced in this notice are in effect for the period July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. The Chief Operating Officer takes this action to give notice of Direct Loan interest rates to the public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rene Tiongquico, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE., 11th floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 377-4270 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.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.268.

    Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)), specifies the interest rates charged to borrowers for Federal Direct Subsidized Stafford/Ford Loans (Direct Subsidized Loans), Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford/Ford Loans (Direct Unsubsidized Loans), Federal Direct PLUS Loans (Direct PLUS Loans), and Federal Direct Consolidation Loans (Direct Consolidation Loans), collectively referred to as “Direct Loans.” The interest rates for Direct Loans may be variable or fixed.

    Variable-Rate Direct Loans

    Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans that were first disbursed before July 1, 2006, and Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received before February 1, 1999, have variable interest rates that are determined each year in accordance with formulas specified in section 455(b) of the HEA. The variable interest rate formula that applies to a particular loan depends on the date of the first disbursement of the loan or, for some Direct Consolidation Loans, the date the application for the loan was received. The variable rates are determined annually and are effective for each 12-month period beginning July 1 of one year and ending June 30 of the following year.

    Except for Direct PLUS Loans that were first disbursed before July 1, 1998, the variable interest rates for most types of Direct Loans are based on formulas that use the bond equivalent rates of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage. In each case, the calculated rate is capped by a maximum interest rate. The bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned on May 30, 2017, which is used to calculate the interest rates on these loans, is 0.976 percent rounded up to 0.98 percent.

    The interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 1994, and before July 1, 1998, is based on the weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the last day of the calendar week ending on or before June 26 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage. The calculated rate is capped by a maximum interest rate. The weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield published on June 26, 2017, which is used to calculate the interest rate on these loans, is 1.22 percent.

    Charts 1 through 4 in this notice show the interest rates for variable-rate Direct Loans that are in effect for the period July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018.

    Chart 1—Variable-Rate Direct Subsidized and Direct Unsubsidized Loans Interest Rates in Effect for the Period 7/1/2017 Through 6/30/2018 Cohort First disbursed on or after First disbursed
  • before
  • Max. rate
  • (%)
  • Index rate 91-day
  • T-bill rate
  • (%)
  • Margin In-school,
  • grace,
  • deferment
  • (%)
  • All other
  • periods
  • (%)
  • Total rate In-school,
  • grace,
  • deferment
  • (%)
  • All other
  • periods
  • (%)
  • 7/1/1994 7/1/1995 8.25 0.98 3.10 3.10 4.08 4.08 7/1/1995 7/1/1998 8.25 0.98 2.50 3.10 3.48 4.08 7/1/1998 7/1/2006 8.25 0.98 1.70 2.30 2.68 3.28
    Chart 2—Variable-Rate Direct PLUS Loans Interest Rates in Effect for the Period 7/1/2017 Through 6/30/2018 Cohort First disbursed on or after First disbursed before Max. rate
  • (%)
  • Index rate 91-day
  • T-bill rate
  • (%)
  • 1-year
  • constant
  • treasury
  • maturity
  • (%)
  • Margin
  • (%)
  • Total rate
  • (%)
  • 7/1/1994 7/1/1998 9.00 1.22 3.10 4.32 7/1/1998 7/1/2006 9.00 0.98 3.10 4.08
    Chart 3—Variable-Rate Direct Subsidized and Direct Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans Interest Rates in Effect for the Period 7/1/2017 Through 6/30/2018 Cohort First disbursed on or after First disbursed before Max. rate
  • (%)
  • Index rate 91-Day
  • T-Bill rate
  • (%)
  • Margin In-School,
  • grace,
  • deferment
  • (%)
  • All other
  • periods
  • (%)
  • Total rate In-School,
  • grace,
  • deferment
  • (%)
  • All other
  • periods
  • (%)
  • 7/1/1994 7/1/1995 8.25 0.98 3.10 3.10 4.08 4.08 7/1/1995 7/1/1998 8.25 0.98 2.50 3.10 3.48 4.08 7/1/1998 10/1/1998 8.25 0.98 1.70 2.30 2.68 3.28 First disbursed on or after Application received before 10/1/1998 10/1/1998 8.25 0.98 1.70 2.30 2.68 3.28 Application received on or after Application received before 10/1/1998 2/1/1999 8.25 0.98 2.30 2.30 3.28 3.28
    Chart 4—Variable-Rate Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans Interest Rates in Effect for the Period 7/1/2017 Through 6/30/2018 Cohort First disbursed on or after First disbursed before Max. rate
  • (%)
  • Index rate 91-day
  • T-Bill rate
  • (%)
  • 1-year
  • constant
  • treasury
  • maturity
  • (%)
  • Margin In-school,
  • grace,
  • deferment
  • (%)
  • All other
  • periods
  • (%)
  • Total rate In-School,
  • grace,
  • deferment
  • (%)
  • All other
  • periods
  • (%)
  • 7/1/1994 7/1/1998 9.00 1.22 3.10 3.10 4.32 4.32 7/1/1998 10/1/1998 9.00 0.98 3.10 3.10 4.08 4.08 First disbursed on or after Application received before 10/1/1998 10/1/1998 9.00 0.98 3.10 3.10 4.08 4.08 Application received on or after Application received before 10/1/1998 2/1/1999 8.25 0.98 2.30 2.30 3.28 3.28
    Fixed-Rate Direct Loans

    Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2013, and Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999, have fixed interest rates. The fixed interest rates for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2013, and Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999 may be found in a Federal Register notice published on October 3, 2016 (81 FR 68003), under the heading “Chart 5—Fixed-Rate Direct Subsidized, Direct Unsubsidized, Direct PLUS Loans, and Direct Consolidation Loans First Disbursed On or After 7/1/2006 and Before 7/1/2013.”

    Interest rates for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2013, and before July 1, 2018, are published in earlier Federal Register notices, as follows:

    • For loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2013, and prior to July 1, 2014, see 78 FR 59011.

    • For loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2014, and prior to July 1, 2015, see 79 FR 37301.

    • For loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2015, and prior to July 1, 2016, see 80 FR 42488.

    • For loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2016, and prior to July 1, 2017, see 81 FR 38159.

    • For loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2017, and prior to July 1, 2018, see 82 FR 29062.

    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 Adobe Portable Document Format (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.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087 et seq.

    Dated: August 14, 2017. A. Wayne Johnson, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17425 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4000-01-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: EC17-156-000.

    Applicants: Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170809-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-794-006.

    Applicants: Catalyst Paper Operations Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Update MBR Tariff to be effective 1/27/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5032.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2200-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to OATT Att O and P revisions submitted in ER17-2200 re: Solar Generation to be effective 9/29/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2271-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing black start and system restoration service tariff revisions to be effective 10/8/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170809-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2272-000.

    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Second Amended and Restated IFA Agreement to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 8/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170809-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2273-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-09_SA 3041 Gratiot Farms-METC GIA (G934) to be effective 8/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/9/17.

    Accession Number: 20170809-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2274-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-10_SA 3037 Pine River Wind-METC GIA (J589) to be effective 7/27/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5008.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2275-000.

    Applicants: Green Power Energy LLC.

    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver and Request for Expedited Action of Green Power Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5026.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2276-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-10_Termination of Project J233 E&P Agreements (SA 2507 & SA 2696) to be effective 8/11/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5027.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2277-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-10_SA 1976 MEC-ITC Midwest 3rd Revised TIA to be effective 8/21/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2278-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-10_SA 3035 OTP-Dakota Range I & II E&P (J436 J437) to be effective 7/29/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5052.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2279-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Craven LGIA SA 271 Filing to be effective 10/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2280-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SPS-GSEC-RBEC-CA-Wolves-668-0.0.0 to be effective 10/8/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2281-000.

    Applicants: Swamp Fox Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 10/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5093.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2282-000.

    Applicants: Champion Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 10/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-52-000.

    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.

    Description: Application of Upper Peninsula Power Company for Authorization under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Treatment.

    Filed Date: 8/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170810-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    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: August 10, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17349 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD17-18-000] Village of Waterbury; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On August 4, 2017, the Village of Waterbury filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Guptil Road 4.0 kW In-conduit Hydroelectric Net-Metered Project (Guptil Road Project) would have an installed capacity of 4 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along a 12-inch diameter potable water pipeline. The project would be located near the Village of Waterbury in Washington County, Vermont.

    Applicant Contact: William Shepeluk, Municipal Manager, Village of Waterbury, 28 North Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05676; Phone No. (802) 244-7033

    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No. (202) 502-6062; Email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new 4 foot-long, 1.5-inch diameter intake pipe off of the 12-inch diameter potable water pipeline, (2) one generating unit with an installed capacity of four kW located within an existing 8-foot-long by 12-foot-wide pressure reducing vault; (3) a new 4-foot-long, 2-inch diameter outlet pipe returning water to the 12-inch diameter water main; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of 35.6 megawatt-hours.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed hydroelectric project will utilize an existing potable water pipeline, the primary purpose of which is to convey drinking water to the Village of Waterbury. The addition of the Guptil Road Project will not alter the conduit's primary purpose. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2017).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD17-18) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17351 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-480-000] Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on August 2, 2017, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (Florida Gas), 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above referenced Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon approximately 6.7 miles of the 8-inch-diameter Rinker Lateral, associated measurement and regulation station, and appurtenant facilities, all located in Miami-Dade County, Florida (Rinker Facilities Abandonment Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this prior notice request should be directed to Blair Lichtenwalter, Senior Director of Certificates, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas, 77002, or call (713) 989-2605, or fax (713) 989-1205, or via email [email protected]

    Specifically, Florida Gas proposes to abandon in place the Rinker Lateral, which originates downstream of Lateral Line Valve (LLV) 20-90B at Mile Post 914.0 on Florida Gas's mainline and the Rinker Measurement and Regulation Station located at Rinker Portland Cement Corp's plant. Florida Gas also proposes to abandon by removal LLV 20-90B. Florida Gas states that Rinker Lateral and facilities have not been used to provide interruptible or firm transportation in over two years. Florida Gas further states that proposed abandonment would eliminate additional capital and/or operating expenditures which could potentially result in an increased net operating loss for Florida Gas as time goes on.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the e-Filing link.

    Dated: August 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17390 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-477-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on July 31, 2017, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in Docket No. CP17-477-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, requesting authorization to abandon two injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells, along with the associated pipelines and appurtenances at its Lucas Storage Field, located in Ashland and Richland Counties, Ohio. Columbia states that the Lucas 10697 and 10722 I/W wells have historically performed poorly in relation to other wells in the Lucas Storage Field and, based the age of the wells, the wells would require an extensive case replacement job. Columbia asserts that the proposed abandonment of the Lucas 10697 well includes the abandonment of 977 feet of 3.5-inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenances and the proposed abandonment of the Lucas 10722 well includes the abandonment of 4.5-inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenances. Columbia avers that there will be no change to the existing boundary, total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, or the certificated capacity of the Lucas Storage Field as a result of the proposed abandonment, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas, 77002-2700, by telephone at (832) 320-5685, by fax at (832) 320-6685, or by email at [email protected].

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17352 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-482-000] Ohio River System LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on August 3, 2017, Ohio River System LLC (ORS), 8111 Westchester Drive, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75225, filed in Docket No. CP17-482-000 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting a limited jurisdiction certificate in order to provide jurisdictional transportation service on its Ohio River System gathering facilities (ORS System). ORS further seeks a determination by the Commission that the proposed interstate transportation service will not otherwise affect the status of the ORS System as a gathering system not otherwise subject to the Commission's jurisdiction or affect the non-jurisdictional status of any other operation in which ORS is currently engaged. ORS proposes to provide 150,000 million British thermal units per day of interstate transportation service, via displacement, for Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) to allow Rover's shippers to deliver gas to Rockies Express Pipeline LLC's system utilizing the ORS System. The Rover system will interconnect with the ORS System near Cadiz, Ohio and no new facilities are proposed to be constructed, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Alan Vaina, Senior Vice President, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 6051 Wallace Road Ext, Suite 399, Wexford, Pennsylvania 15090, by telephone at (878) 332-2220, or by email at [email protected]; or Lisa Tonery, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York 10019, by telephone at (212) 506-3710, or by email at [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 31, 2017.

    Dated: August 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17354 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17-83-000] Piedmont Municipal Power Agency v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on August 10, 2017, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212 (2017) and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Respondent) alleging that, Respondent assessed and collected charges that violate the service agreement on file with the Commission, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    The Complainant states that certifies copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    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 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.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 11, 2017.

    Dated: August 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17391 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-483-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on August 4, 2017, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in Docket No. CP17-483-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, to abandon approximately six miles of 6-inch-diameter steel pipe (Line H-107), along with the associated appurtenances and exposures, located in Hocking County, Ohio.

    Columbia asserts that the proposed abandonment will not affect its ability to maintain service to its customers. Columbia Gas of Ohio, the Local Distribution Company, will be running a new line to the town of Carbon Hill to continue service to all customers and the abandonment of Line H-107 will take place after the new line is in place. Columbia estimates the cost of the abandonment to be $824,672, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas, 77002-2700, by telephone at (832) 320-5685, by facsimile at (832) 320-6685, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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 seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17355 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-478-000] Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on August 1, 2017, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046 filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to abandon certain natural gas pipeline assets, ancillary facilities and appurtenances, located in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana and Louisiana State waters. Specifically, Texas Gas proposes to (1) abandon in place approximately 3.61 miles of 8.625-inch-diameter pipeline, known as the Bay Junop to Bay Round 8-inch pipeline; (2) abandon in place approximately 10.05 miles and abandon by removal approximately 0.24 miles of 8.625-inch-diameter pipeline, known as the Bay Round to Block 8 8-inch pipeline; and (3) abandon by removal the Bay Round Platform and the Brammer Old Camp Pass Platform. These Facilities have been idled since 2012 and abandonment avoids the ongoing maintenance costs of unused existing natural gas pipeline assets. There will be no impact to any customer's service as a result of the abandonment, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates and Tariffs, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 610 West 2nd Street, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, by phone (270) 688-6825, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17353 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-2275-000] New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 10, 2017, pursuant to section 211 of the Federal Power Act 1 and section 9.3.3 of New York Independent System Operator, Inc. filed an application requesting a Petition for Limited Waiver and Request for Expedited Action of Green Power Energy LLC.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824j (2012).

    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 and 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.

    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 14 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.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 31, 2017.

    Dated: August 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17357 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1840-000] Canton Mountain 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 Canton Mountain 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 30, 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: August 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17356 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243; FRL-9965-04-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Plywood and Composite Wood Products National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), for the “Plywood and Composite Wood Products National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Risk and Technology Review (RTR)” (EPA ICR No. 2552.01, OMB Control No. 2060—NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request for approval of a new collection. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (81 FR 62125) on September 8, 2016, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Bradfield, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3062; fax number: (919) 541-3470; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: This ICR is being conducted by the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation to assist the EPA Administrator to fulfill his responsibilities under sections 112(d) and 112(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended. The CAA requires a review of each NESHAP following the application of the standard to determine any remaining risk and whether the standard is protective to public health with an ample margin of safety and prevents adverse environmental effects. The CAA also requires that the standard be reviewed and revised, as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technology. For efficiency and to reduce burden, these reviews are conducted concurrently and known as RTR. The federal emission standard that is the subject of this information collection is the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD). On March 22, 2017, the EPA was ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to complete the PCWP RTR no later than June 30, 2020. In addition to the CAA reviews, in 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a remand requiring the administrator to develop standards for emission units identified in the PCWP NESHAP for which emission limits were not promulgated.

    The ICR will provide specific, required information, including emission inventories, compliance demonstrations, process changes, and information about control technologies/practices adopted since the application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The ICR will be sent to all known operators of PCWP facilities that are major sources for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) regulated by the PCWP NESHAP and synthetic area sources that may have used technology to avoid major source status triggering NESHAP applicability. The information collection seeks to collect facility-level information (e.g., facility name, location, contact information, and process unit details), emissions information, compliance data, control information, and descriptions of technological innovations.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Major sources regulated by the PCWP NESHAP and synthetic area sources that may have used technology to avoid major source status triggering NESHAP applicability.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under the authority of section 114 of the CAA.

    Estimated number of respondents: 397 (total).

    Frequency of response: Once.

    Total estimated burden: 59,437 hours (one-time). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $4,199,272 (one-time), which includes $6,650 in operation and maintenance costs (O&M) to cover mailing hard copies.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17385 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0850] Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of a currently approved public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0850.

    OMB Approval Date: July 18, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: July 31, 2020.

    Title: Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services, FCC Form 605.

    Form No.: FCC Form 605.

    Respondents: Individuals and Households, Business or Other For-Profit Entities; Not-For-Profit Institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 130,000 respondents and 130,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.17 hours-0.44 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement, recordkeeping & other (5 & 10 years).

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 CFR 1.913(a)(4).

    Total Annual Burden: 57,218 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $ 2,676,700.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality. The Commission is required to withhold from disclosure certain information about the individual such as date of birth or telephone number. FCC 605 application is a consolidated application form for Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Radio Operators, and General Mobile Radio Services and is used to collect licensing data for the Universal Licensing System. The Commission is requesting OMB approval for an extension (no change in the reporting, recordkeeping and/or third party disclosure requirements). The Commission is making minor clarifications to the instructions on the main form and schedule B as well as a clarification to Item 3 on the main form. 4 The data collected on this form includes the Date of Birth for Commercial Operator licensees however this information will be redacted from public view.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

    Needs and Uses: The FCC uses the information in FCC Form 605 to determine whether the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to obtain a license. Without such information, the Commission cannot determine whether to issue the licenses to the applicants that provide telecommunication services to the public, and therefore, to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Commission is revising the basic qualifications section of the form to include a question regarding whether an application has been convicted of a felony in any state or federal court. Applicants, answering yes must provide an explanation. This item enables the FCC to determine whether an Applicant is eligible under §§ 310(d) and 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to hold or have ownership interest in a station license. In addition we are seeking approval to change the ship application form require the applicant provide the official ship number. Coast Guard requests we change this question from optional to required. Obtaining the ship number is the only way to reliably link a license to a specific vessel. The Information provided on this form will also be used to update the database and to provide for proper use of the frequency spectrum as well as enforcement purposes.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17394 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 13, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Brendan S. Murrin, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Border Bancshares, Inc., Greenbush, Minnesota; to acquire 100 percent of First State Bank of Clearbrook, Clearbrook, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 14, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17415 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 5, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Jeff Schumacher, Lincoln, Nebraska; to acquire voting shares of Farm and Home Insurance Agency, Inc., and thereby acquire shares of First Northeast Bank of Nebraska, both of Lyons, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 14, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17414 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Specialty Benchmarks PSO AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of delisting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ has accepted a notification of voluntary relinquishment from the Specialty Benchmarks PSO of its status as a PSO, and has delisted the PSO accordingly.

    DATES:

    The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was applicable at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 12, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site: http://www.pso.ahrq.gov/listed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008, 73 FR 70732-70814, establish a framework by which hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers may voluntarily report information to Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), on a privileged and confidential basis, for the aggregation and analysis of patient safety events. The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

    HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.

    AHRQ has accepted a notification from the Specialty Benchmarks PSO, a component entity of Market Share, LLC, PSO number P0113, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the Specialty Benchmarks PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 12, 2017.

    The Specialty Benchmarks PSO has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO and of section 3.108(c)(2)(ii) regarding disposition of PSWP consistent with section 3.108(b)(3). According to section 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.

    More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at http://www.pso.ahrq.gov.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17153 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-1048; Docket No. CDC-2017-0056] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the information collection project titled “Assessing Education Agency Staff Perceptions of School Climate and Youth Access to Services.” This study provides in-depth assessment of HIV and STD prevention efforts in three local education agencies funded by CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0056 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Assessing Education Agency Staff Perceptions of School Climate and Youth Access to Services (OMB Control Number 0920-1048, expiration date 2/28/2018)—Revision—Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    HIV infections remain high among young men who have sex with men (YMSM). The estimated number of new HIV infections increased between 2008 and 2010 both overall and among MSM ages 13 to 24. Furthermore, sexual risk behaviors associated with HIV, other sexually transmitted disease (STD), and pregnancy often emerge in adolescence. For example, 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) data revealed 41.2% of U.S. high school students reported having had sex, and among those who had sex in the previous three months, only 56.9% reported having used a condom during last sexual intercourse. In addition, 2015 YRBSS data revealed high school students identifying as gay, lesbian, and bisexual were more likely to report engaging in sexual risk-taking behaviors than heterosexual students.

    Given the disproportionate risk for HIV among YMSM ages 13-24, it is important to find ways to reach the younger youth (i.e., ages 13-19) in this range to decrease sexual risk behaviors and increase health-promoting behaviors such as routine HIV testing. Schools provide one opportunity for this. Because schools enroll more than 22 million teens (ages 14-19) and often have existing health and social services infrastructure, schools and their staff members are well-positioned to connect youth to a wide range of needed services, including housing assistance, support groups, and sexual health services such as HIV testing. As a result, CDC's DASH has focused a number of HIV and STD prevention efforts on strategies that can be implemented in or centered on schools.

    However, conducting HIV and STD prevention work (particularly work that is designed to specifically meet the needs of YMSM), can be challenging. School is not always a welcoming environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Harassment, bullying, and verbal and physical assault are often reported, and such unsupportive environments and victimization among LGBT youth are associated with a variety of negative outcomes, including truancy, substance use, poor mental health, HIV and STD risk, and even suicide.

    The CDC requests a one-year OMB approval for the revision of the information collection entitled, “Assessing Education Agency Staff Perceptions of School Climate and Youth Access to Services.” The information collection uses 2 separate, but complementary, information collections to conduct assessment of HIV and STD prevention efforts that are taking place in three local education agencies (LEA) funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH) under strategy 4 (School-Centered HIV/STD Prevention for Young Men Who Have Sex with Men) of PS13-1308: Promoting Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention and School-Based Surveillance. This data collection will provide data and reports for the funded LEAs, and will allow the LEAs to identify areas of the program that are working well and other areas that will need additional improvement. In addition, the findings will allow CDC to determine the potential impact of currently recommended strategies and make changes to those recommendations if necessary. This revision request involves no changes to instruments, protocols, or burden estimates per respondent or per data collection cycle; however, annualized burden estimates have technical changes due to changes in the number of data collections planned and the length of clearance requested.

    The first information collection will involve collecting information from a total of up to 735 LEA employees in 3 LEAs through a Web-based instrument tailored to each LEA. The instrument will include items that ask education agency staff about professional development, referral practices, community linkages/partners, school climate for LGBTQ youth, school policies and practices, and staff comfort levels in helping address the health needs of YMSM.

    The second information collection will be conducted in only 1 LEA (Broward County Public Schools) and is designed to provide an in-depth assessment of one LEA as a way to supplement the Web-based data collection with more detailed information. This information collection will involve in-person interviews with up to 44 LEA employees (2 district level employees, and up to 6 school level employees in each of 7 schools) to learn about six domains that can impact school climate: Policy, practice, programs, professional development, place, and pedagogy.

    Both the Web-based instrument and in-person interviews will be administered in the 2017-2018 school year as the final data collection in a series of data collections for the 5-year PS13-1308 cooperative agreement. Although some staff may have participated in previous years' data collections, this is not a longitudinal design and individual staff member responses will not be tracked across the years. No personally identifiable information will be collected.

    All school staff members will receive informed consent forms prior to participation in the information collection. The consent form explains the study and also explains participants may choose not to complete the Web-based instrument or participate in the interviews with no penalty and no impact on their job or relationship with the LEA. Participation is completely voluntary.

    For the Web-based instrument, the estimated burden per response ranges from 20-25 minutes. This variation in burden is due to the slight variability in skip patterns that may occur with certain responses and variations in the reading speed of respondents. The burden estimates presented here are based on the assumption of a 25-minute response time per response. The estimated annualized burden of this data collection is 306 hours for respondents. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    For the Web-based instrument, the estimated burden per response ranges from 60-90 minutes, depending on whether the respondent is a district-level administrator, a school-level administrator, or another school staff member. The burden estimates presented here are based on the assumption of a 1-hour response time per district-level and school-level administrator response and a 1.5-hour response time per school staff member response. The estimated annualized burden of this data collection is 58 hours for respondents. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    The two information collections combine for a total estimated annualized burden of 367 hours for respondents.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • School staff Web-based instrument for Broward County Public Schools 245 1 25/60 102 School staff Web-based instrument for Los Angeles Unified School District 245 1 25/60 102 School staff Web-based instrument for San Francisco Unified School District 245 1 25/60 102 District-level Administrators School Climate Index Interview Guide for District-level Administrators 2 1 1 2 School-level Administrators School Climate Index Interview Guide for School-level Administrators 14 1 1 14 School Staff School Climate Index Interview Guide for School Staff 28 1 1.5 42 Total 364
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17402 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Chimpanzee Research Use Form (Office of the Director) AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25609) and allowed 60 days for public comment. The NIH received no requests to view the form and one comment expressing the opinion that chimpanzee research should be discontinued but did not receive any public comments on the form itself. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: Desk Officer for NIH.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: The Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, OD, NIH, Building 1, Room 260, 1 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892; or call non-toll-free number 301-402-9852; or email your request, including your address, to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.

    Proposed Collection: Chimpanzee Research Use Form, 0925-0705, Extension Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The purpose of this form is to obtain information needed by the NIH to assess whether the proposed research satisfies the agency's policy for permitting only noninvasive research involving chimpanzees. The NIH will consider the information submitted through this form prior to the agency making funding decisions or otherwise allowing the research to begin. Completion of this form is a mandatory step toward receiving NIH support or approval for non-invasive research involving chimpanzees. The NIH does not fund any research involving chimpanzees proposed in new or other competing projects (renewals or revisions) unless the research is consistent with the definition of “noninvasive research,” as described in the “Standards of Care for Chimpanzees Held in the Federally Supported Chimpanzee Sanctuary System” (42 CFR part 9). See NOT-OD-16-095 at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-095.html and 81 FR 6873.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 10.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average time per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual burden hour
    Research Community 20 1 30/60 10 Total 20 10
    Dated: August 11, 2017. Lawrence A. Tabak, Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17411 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1737] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”

    Dated: July 13, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and
  • case No.
  • Chief executive officer
  • of community
  • Community map repository Online location of letter of map revision Effective date of
  • modification
  • Community No.
    Arizona: Pima Town of Marana (17-09-0328P) The Honorable Ed Honea, Mayor, Town of Marana, 11555 West Civic Center Drive, Marana, AZ 85653 Engineering Department, 11555 West Civic Center Drive, Marana, AZ 85653 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 20, 2017 040118 Pima Unincorporated Areas of Pima County (17-09-0328P) The Honorable Sharon Bronson, Chair, Pima County Board of Supervisors, 130 West Congress Street, 11th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Pima County Flood Control District, 201 North Stone Avenue, 9th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 20, 2017 040073 California: Riverside Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Reservation (16-09-1551P) The Honorable Jeff L. Grubbe, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, 5401 Dinah Shore Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92264 Planning and Natural Resources, 5401 Dinah Shore Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92264 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 20, 2017 060763 Riverside City of Cathedral City (16-09-1551P) The Honorable Stanley E. Henry, Mayor, City of Cathedral City, 68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City, CA 92234 Engineering Department, 68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City, CA 92234 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 20, 2017 060704 Riverside City of Palm Springs (16-09-1551P) The Honorable Robert Moon, Mayor, City of Palm Springs, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262 City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 20, 2017 060257 San Joaquin City of Lathrop (17-09-0203P) The Honorable Sonny Dhaliwal, Mayor, City of Lathrop, 390 Towne Centre Drive, Lathrop, CA 95330 City Hall, 390 Towne Centre Drive, Lathrop, CA 95330 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 23, 2017 060738 Idaho: Ada City of Boise (17-10-0875P) The Honorable David H. Bieter, Mayor, City of Boise, P.O. Box 500, Boise, ID 83701 Planning and Development Services, City Hall, 150 North Capital Boulevard, Boise, ID 83701 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 13, 2017 160002 Kootenai City of Coeur d'Alene (17-10-0479P) The Honorable Steve Widmyer, Mayor, City of Coeur d'Alene, Coeur d'Alene City Hall, 710 East Mullan Avenue, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 City Hall Planning Department, 710 East Mullan Avenue, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 17, 2017 160078 Kootenai Unincorporated Areas of Kootenai County (17-10-0479P) Mr. Marc Eberlein, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Kootenai County, 451 Government Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Assessors Department, Kootenai County Court House, 451 Government Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 17, 2017 160076 Minnesota: Anoka City of Coon Rapids (17-05-2891P) The Honorable Jerry Koch, Mayor, City of Coon Rapids, Coon Rapids City Hall, 11155 Robinson Drive, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 City Hall, 11155 Robinson Drive, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 6, 2017 270011 Norman City of Ada (17-05-1647P) The Honorable Jim Ellefson, Mayor, City of Ada, Ada City Hall, 15 4th Avenue East, Ada, MN 56510 City Hall, 15 4th Avenue East, Ada, MN 56510 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 20, 2017 270323 Norman Unincorporated Areas of Norman County (17-05-1647P) Mr. Marvin Gunderson, Chairman, Norman County Commissioners, Norman County Courthouse, 16 3rd Avenue East, Ada, MN 56510 Norman County Courthouse, 16 3rd Avenue East, Ada, MN 56510 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 20, 2017 270322 Nevada: Nye Unincorporated Areas of Nye County (17-09-1129P) The Honorable Dan Schinhofen, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Nye County, 2100 East Walt Williams Drive, Suite 100, Pahrump, NV 89048 Nye County, Department of Planning, 250 North Highway 160, Suite 1, Pahrump, NV 89060 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 26, 2017 320018 Ohio: Stark Unincorporated Areas of Stark County (17-05-1880P) The Honorable Janet Weir Creighton, President, Board of Stark County Commissioners, 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 240, Canton, OH 44702 Stark County Office Building, 110 Central Plaza South, Canton, OH 44702 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 11, 2017 390780 Oregon: Lane City of Springfield (16-10-1640P) The Honorable Christine Lundberg, Mayor, City of Springfield, Springfield City Hall, 225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 Planning Department, 225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 17, 2017 415592 Lane Unincorporated Areas of Lane County (16-10-1640P) Mr. Sid Leiken, Commissioner, Lane County, Lane County Public Service Building, 125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 Lane County Planning Department, Public Service Building, 125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 17, 2017 415591 Texas: Dallas City of Dallas (17-06-1494P) The Honorable Michael S. Rawlings, Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 5en, Dallas, TX 75201 City Hall, 320 East Jefferson Boulevard, Room 321, Dallas, TX 75203 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 12, 2017 480171 Washington: King City of Lake Forest Park (17-10-0060P) The Honorable Jeff Johnson, Mayor, City of Lake Forest Park, City Hall, 17425 Ballinger Way Northeast, Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 City Hall, 17425 Ballinger Way Northeast, Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 10, 2017 530082 Whatcom City of Bellingham (17-10-0520P) The Honorable Kellie Linville, Mayor, City Bellingham, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225 Public Works/Engineering Department, City Hall, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 18, 2017 530199
    [FR Doc. 2017-16953 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2017-N090; FXES11130300000-178-FF03E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.

    DATES:

    We must receive any written comments on or before September 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carlita Payne, (612) 713-5343.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.

    Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA), prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless the activities are specifically authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.

    A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

    Applications Available for Review and Comment

    We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    Permit Applications

    Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Application
  • No.
  • Applicant Species Location Activity Type of take Permit
  • action
  • TE88224B Joseph Snavely IV, Chambersburg, PA Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) North Carolina Conduct presence/absence surveys Capture, handle, release Amend. TE35856C Marla Spivak, Saint Paul, MN Rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) Minnesota Conduct presence/absence surveys Capture, handle, release New. TE06846A Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) Michigan Conduct presence/absence surveys, conduct population monitoring, assess diet Capture, handle, radio-tag, release Amend. TE32959C Daniel Cariveau, Roseville, MN Rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) Minnesota, Wisconsin Conduct presence/absence surveys Capture, handle, release New.
    National Environmental Policy Act

    The proposed activities in the requested permits qualify as categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act, as provided by Department of the Interior implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the CFR (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215).

    Public Availability of Comments

    We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in ADDRESSES.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: June 7, 2017. Sean O. Marsan, Acting Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17397 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4333-15-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1378-1379 (Preliminary)] Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and Taiwan; Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of low melt polyester staple fiber from Korea and Taiwan, provided for in subheading 5503.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of an affirmative final determinations in those investigations under section 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Background

    On June 27, 2017, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, Livingston, New Jersey filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of low melt polyester staple fiber from Korea and Taiwan. Accordingly, on June 27, 2017, the Commission, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), instituted antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1378-1379 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30907). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on July 18, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on August 11, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4720 (August 2017), entitled Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 1378-1379 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 11, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17360 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same II DN 3243; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures II LLC on August 11, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain thermoplastic-encapsulated electric motors, components thereof, and products and vehicles containing same II. The complaint names as respondents Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. of Japan; Aisin Holdings of America, Inc. of Seymour, IN; Aisin Technical Center of America, Inc. of Northville, MI; Aisin World Corporation of America of Northville, MI; Asmo Co. Ltd. of Japan; ASMO North America, LLC of Statesville, NC; ASMO North Carolina, Inc. of Statesville, NC; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG of Germany; BMW of North America, LLC of Woodcliff Lake, NJ; BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC of Greer, SC; Denso Corporation of Japan; Denso International America, Inc. of Southfield, MI; Honda Motor Co., Ltd. of Japan; Honda North America, Inc. of Torrance, CA; American Honda Motor Co., Inc. of Torrance, CA; Honda of America Mfg., Inc. of Marysville, OH; Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC of Lincoln, AL; Honda R & D Americas, Inc. of Torrance, CA; Mistuba Corporation of Japan; American Mitsuba Corporation of Mount Pleasant, MI; Nidec Corporation of Japan; Nidec Automotive Motor Americas, LLC of Auburn Hills, MI; Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan; Toyota Motor North America, Inc., of New York, NY; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. of Torrance CA; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. of Erlanger, KY; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. of Princeton, IN; and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. of Georgetown, KY. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3243”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 1 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

    2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 11, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17377 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-388, 389, and 391 and 731-TA-817, 818, and 821 (Third Review)] Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, and Korea; Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews; Correction AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Correction of notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Correction is made to the December 20, 2017 hearing day in the Hearing section of the notice which was published on August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37465). The day of the hearing should be Wednesday, December 20, 2017.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 10, 2017, in FR Doc. 17-16893, on page 37466, in the second column, in the fourth paragraph, under the heading Hearing, in the fourth line, correct “Thursday, December 20, 2017” to read “Wednesday, December 20, 2017”.

    Issued: August 11, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17370 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1332 (Final)] Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India and Italy; Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy, provided for in subheading 7307.91.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), and to be subsidized by the government of India.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Background

    The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective June 30, 2016, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Weldbend Corporation, Argo, Illinois and Boltex Mfg. Co., L.P., Houston, Texas. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and that imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy were sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on February 17, 2017 (82 FR 11056). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on August 14, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4717 (August 2017), entitled Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India and Italy: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1332 (Final).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 14, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17421 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [Docket No. ATF 2017R-13] Granting of Relief; Federal Firearms Privileges AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ).

    ACTION:

    Notice of granting of restoration of Federal firearms privileges.

    SUMMARY:

    Action Manufacturing Company (Action), has been granted relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws by the Director of ATF with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vivian S. Chu, Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice; 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone (202) 648-7070.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44. He has delegated that responsibility to the Director of ATF, subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. 28 CFR 0.130(a). ATF has promulgated regulations that implement the provisions of the GCA in 27 CFR part 478.

    Section 922(g) of the GCA prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who—

    (1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

    (2) Is a fugitive from justice;

    (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

    (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;

    (5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or with certain exceptions, aliens admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

    (6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

    (7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;

    (8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or

    (9) Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

    The term “person” is defined in section 921(a)(1) as including “any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” Section 925(c) of the GCA provides that a person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General to remove the firearms disability imposed under section 922(g) “if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” The Attorney General has delegated the authority to grant relief from firearms disabilities to the Director of ATF.

    Section 925(c) further provides that “[w]henever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.” Regulations implementing the provisions of section 925(c) are set forth in 27 CFR 478.144.

    Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from expending appropriated funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities. However, since 1993 Congress has authorized ATF to expend appropriated funds to investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief from Federal firearms disabilities.

    An application to ATF for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) was submitted for Action. In the matter under review, Action was convicted in Federal court of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Specifically, Action was convicted on May 21, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for violations of 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5124.

    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(c), on May 22, 2017, Action was granted relief by ATF from the disabilities imposed by Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms as a result of these convictions. It has been established to ATF's satisfaction that the circumstances regarding Action's disabilities and its record and reputation are such that Action will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety, and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

    Date Approved: August 7, 2017. Thomas E. Brandon, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17410 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number1122-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New Collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Approval of a new collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-annual progress report for the Grants for Outreach and Services to Underserved Populations Program.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-XXXX. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the estimated 28 grantees under the Grants for Outreach and Services to Underserved Populations (Underserved Program). A new grant program authorized in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, the Underserved Program supports the development and implementation of strategies targeted at adult or youth victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking in underserved populations, and victim services to meet the needs of such populations. Eligible applicants include nonprofit organizations that serve populations traditionally underserved due to geographic location, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, underserved racial and ethnic populations, and populations underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the 28 respondents (Underserved Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities that grantees may engage in (i.e. victim services, training,) and grantees will be expected to provide information only in connection with those activities supported by OVW funding.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the annual progress report is 56 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 13, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17381 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4410-FX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number1122-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New Collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Approval of a new collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-annual progress report for the Consolidated Grant Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic and Sexual Assault and Engage Men and Boys as Allies.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-XXXX. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the estimated 30 grantees under the Consolidated Youth Program. The Consolidated Grant Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic and Sexual Assault and Engage Men and Boys as Allies (Consolidated Youth Program) was enacted in the FY 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 appropriation acts, which consolidated four previously authorized and appropriated programs into one comprehensive program. The previously authorized and appropriated four programs included in these consolidations were: Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth, Grants to Assist Children and Youth Exposed to Violence, Engaging Men and Youth in Preventing Domestic Violence and Supporting Teens through Education and Prevention grant programs. The Consolidated Youth Program creates a unique opportunity for communities to increase collaboration among non-profit victim service providers, violence prevention programs, and child and youth organizations serving victims ages 0-24. Additionally, it supports organizations and programs that promote boys' and men's role in combating violence against women and girls. Eligible applicants are nonprofit, nongovernmental entities, Indian tribes or tribal nonprofit organizations, and territorial, tribal or unit of local government entities.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the 30 respondents (Consolidated Youth Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities that grantees may engage in (i.e. victim services, training, prevention activities) and grantees will be expected to provide information only in connection with those activities supported by OVW funding.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the annual progress report is 60 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 13, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17380 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4410-FX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number1122-0013] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revisions to a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revisions to a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-Annual Progress Report for Grantees from the Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance Program.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0013. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 165 grantees of the Rural Program. The primary purpose of the Rural Program is to enhance the safety of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and child victimization by supporting projects uniquely designed to address and prevent these crimes in rural jurisdictions. Grantees include States, Indian tribes, local governments, and nonprofit, public or private entities, including tribal nonprofit organizations, to carry out programs serving rural areas or rural communities.

    OVW is proposing revisions to the progress reporting form to reflect statutory changes as a result of the reauthorization of grant programs in 2013 which included permitting grant funds to support the provision of legal services and the addition of new strategies to address sexual assault and special needs of victims in remote areas including providing training for Community Health aides involved in Indian Health Services programs.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 165 respondents (Rural Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities in which grantees may engage (services, law enforcement, training etc.). A Rural Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 330 hours, that is 165 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 13, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17384 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4410-FX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number1122-0006] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revisions to a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revisions to a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semiannual Progress Report for the Improving Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking Grant Program.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0006. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes 200 grantees from the Improving Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking Grant Program (ICJR Program) (also known as Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders) which encourages state, local, and tribal governments and state, local, and tribal courts to treat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking as serious violations of criminal law requiring the coordinated involvement of the entire criminal justice system. Eligible applicants are states and territories, units of local government, Indian tribal governments, coalitions, victim service providers and state, local, tribal, and territorial courts.

    OVW is proposing revisions to the progress reporting form to reflect statutory changes as a result of the reauthorization of VAWA grant programs in 2013 which added nine new purpose areas: training prosecutors; improving the response of the criminal justice system to immigrant victims; developing and promoting legislation and policies to enhance best practices for responding to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; developing Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner programs; developing Sexual Assault Response Teams or similar CCRs to sexual assault; improving investigation and prosecution of sexual assault and treatment of victims; providing HIV testing, counseling, and prophylaxis for victims; addressing sexual assault evidence backlogs including notifying and involving victims; and developing multi-disciplinary high-risk teams for reducing domestic violence and dating violence homicides.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 200 respondents (ICJR Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities in which grantees may engage. An ICJR Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities (victim services, law enforcement, training, etc.).

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 400 hours, that is 200 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 13, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17383 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P4410-FX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number1122-0003] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revisions to a currently approved collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of inf